Genetic Testing: Employment and Insurance

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will legislate against the use of genetic test results in employment and insurance.

Lord Warner: My Lords, in their 2003 genetics White Paper, the Government wholeheartedly endorsed the Human Genetics Commission's view that no one should be unfairly discriminated against on the basis of their genetic characteristics. The Government are undertaking a discrimination law review to develop a clearer and more streamlined framework of equality law. It will consider calls to extend discrimination law into new areas, including the case for introducing protection in relation to genetic discrimination. I cannot predict or pre-empt the review's findings.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely promising reply—it sounds as if the Government are really moving on this. However, is he aware that some human rights lawyers, academics, trade unions and GeneWatch UK have expressed deep concern that we now have no legal barriers against the unfettered use of the tests to discriminate against people and that those with genetic disorders in the United States and Australia are being discriminated against by employers and insurance companies? If we do not act shortly, the same kind of thing will happen here. Although we have a moratorium on insurance companies using genetics, it is a temporary measure; there is no permanent solution. We really need some legislation to prevent abuses before they have begun. So will the Government move as soon as possible, please?

Lord Warner: My Lords, in this country there is no evidence of any large-scale genetic testing in the workplace. My noble friend raised the issue of predictive genetic tests. They cannot be used by insurers unless the tests have been approved by the Government's Genetics and Insurance Committee, and there are strict limitations on them.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is there any suggestion of people being obliged to have genetic tests? I know that insurance companies have had a voluntary code against the practice, but it would be terrible if people were forced to have any kind of genetic test if they did not wish to face what they feared could be an unpleasant reality.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we have a ban until November 2011 on the use by insurers of results from predictive genetic tests unless, as I said, the test has been approved by the GAIC. It would have to be for a policy over the substantial financial limit of £500,000 for life insurance and similar high limits for other types of insurance.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not cover people who have had predictive genetic tests. Will the forthcoming review of equality legalisation ensure that such people are included?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said in my opening reply, I cannot predict what will come out of the review. However, people with a genetic condition are protected by the Disability Discrimination Act once their condition becomes disabling.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I recognise that discrimination of all kinds is something that we cannot accept. However, people who go for employment generally have to have a medical, and sometimes insurance companies require certain information before deciding what the premium for an insurance policy will be. How does the assessment of genetic difficulties compare with other assessments required for employment and insurance?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said, there is no evidence of large-scale genetic testing in the workplace, but the Government have asked the Human Genetics Commission to assess the current prevalence of genetic testing in the workplace and to report back in the spring.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, is my noble friend concerned that people will not be confident to take genetic tests unless the Government legislate to ensure their protection against discrimination?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said, we have a review in place on the issue, which will explore the concerns. We must await that review's outcome.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend, in the context of insurance policies, mentioned a limit of £500,000. Why is there a limit at all?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I said that there was a ban until 2011 unless the test had been approved by the Government's Genetics and Insurance Committee, and it has to be above those limits. So it has to be both approved by the committee and above those limits.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, my noble friend says that there is no evidence in this country. However, there is bags of evidence in the United States and Australia. Does that not matter to him in terms of the speed of legislation? If we do not act now, then, according to predictions, the practice will definitely come here. The sooner we act, the better. Otherwise we will be following events rather than anticipating them.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we are aware of what is going on overseas, but we must deal, in UK law, with mischiefs in this country. We are having a review, and we will consider that review carefully. A Green Paper in the summer will set out the initial proposals coming out of that review.

Internet: Extremist Organisations

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they have taken to deal with extremist organisations using the internet.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, our laws allow full freedom of expression within the limits provided by the Human Rights Act 1998. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the offences of encouragement to terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications in the Terrorism Bill, if passed, will apply to the internet. The Association of Chief Police Officers is looking at how racist material on the internet is dealt with, and we continue to work with UK internet service providers to make UK systems resilient to improper penetration by extremist groups.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware, however, that racist organisations in this country are using the net for their purposes, and so, unfortunately, is Amazon—the mail order company—which sells and, of course, profits from the sale of racist and anti-Semitic literature, including Hitler's Mein Kampf  and the notorious forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? In those circumstances, does she agree that our law already places totally acceptable limits on free speech where necessary, including libel, slander and incitement to racial hatred? Will she please call on Amazon and others to stop profiting from the sale of such racist propaganda?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is important that racist organisations do not make improper use of the internet, which is why ACPO is looking at that very issue. I agree, too, that we have proper limits on free speech, and that anti-Semitic and racist literature is to be deplored wherever it is published. I am confident that Amazon will be aware of what my noble friend says and will doubtless give it the weight that it deserves.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is totally different from such bodies as the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, whose activities on the internet provide such disgusting hate mail?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is invidious for me to talk about individual cases. What I will say, however, is that any hate material used and placed on the internet is a matter of concern; those are issues, as I have tried to make clear, that we need to address. ACPO, in particular, is trying to find ways of dealing with those issues more effectively.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Church's total opposition to anti-Semitism under any pretext whatever? Is she also aware of its support for respecting the religious sensitivities of others? How are the Government promoting those values on the internet and elsewhere?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am aware of what the right reverend Prelate properly indicates is the Church's position, with which the Government absolutely concur. Noble Lords will know that we have done a great deal to enhance the opportunities for different religious groups to come together. I mention, en passant, the attempts that we have made in, for instance, the reducing reoffending alliances, which bring religious groups together to address those issues. We will continue to take every opportunity that we can to enhance harmony in our religious and other communities.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, why is it not possible to take action under the existing incitement to racial hatred provisions rather than wait for the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to come into effect?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, all actions that can properly be taken under current legislation are being taken. The noble Lord is right to highlight the fact that other provisions are available; the additional provisions that we have made available will make it the easier to address some of the issues. He is absolutely right that we need to use current legislation as creatively as we can while we await the implementation of other legislation.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, does the Minister also agree that suppressing unpopular and perhaps offensive views can sometimes make them a great deal more dangerous by encouraging action rather than political discussion and dialogue?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is right. That is why we have freedom of expression and why the Human Rights Act refers to proportionality and balance. There are views that are deeply abhorrent and deeply unpleasant to all of us, but people must have the freedom to explore those issues, and we can then vigorously disagree.

Lord Winston: My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to address not merely racial hatred but the violence threatened against people carrying out respectable, legal and ethical animal research? A large number of websites in this country offer weapons to people who wish to protest against animal research that is done in proper circumstances.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wholeheartedly endorse what my noble friend has said. That is why this House has joined with the other place to pass legislation that trenchantly tries to address that issue. I assure my noble friend and the House that we will continue to do all that we can to make sure that it does not continue to be a scourge for the scientific community, which does so much to try and make our world better.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, although I recognise the thrust of the Question in terms of literature that should not be acceptable on the internet, I wonder whether my noble friend can also address an associated question. The most extremist activity that takes place on the internet might well be the encouragement of suicide bombing and other terrorist activities. If it is still on the internet, perhaps the security services can get in there and ensure that it does not happen, rather than moving away from it and causing us greater difficulty.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend is right to highlight the opportunities on the internet. That is why we have brought before the House specific provisions in the Terrorism Bill that will deal with inappropriate activity. The House had the pleasure of discussing them at some length in passing the relevant clauses.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister seems to be talking just about material produced in the United Kingdom. Have Her Majesty's Government any control over material brought in from overseas?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not have direct control but, irrespective of whether a website is hosted abroad, someone who was accused of the offence of inciting others to commit crimes would not be exempt from prosecution merely because they had used a website that was hosted in a foreign jurisdiction. That gives us great comfort. Our internet service providers have been energetic in trying to make sure that there is no improper penetration of services here.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, according to newspaper reports, there are websites based in Florida that incite murder and violence against those who conduct animal experiments in this country. It is suggested that the websites are somehow protected by the first amendment to the United States constitution, which is absurd. Will the Government make representations to the United States authorities to make sure that that kind of incitement to murder and violence—sometimes worse—will be eradicated?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Lord that we have not failed to take any opportunity to collaborate with our international partners, including those in the USA, to get a better understanding of the issues and to make sure that improper use is not made of the internet. We will continue so to do.

Energy: Domestic Saving

Lord Watson of Richmond: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to persuade households of the benefits of saving energy.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we aim to publish our revised climate change programme shortly, which will set out our plans to engage consumers in energy saving. At present, the Government support activity to persuade householders of the benefits of saving energy for our climate change and fuel poverty goals through the work of the Energy Saving Trust, the Warm Front programme and the energy efficiency commitment.

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Given that more than 30 per cent of the energy that we use in the United Kingdom is used in our own homes, will the Government urgently examine the possibility of real tax incentives to homeowners to insulate their own home? That course of action is proving very successful in some other countries.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that a high proportion of energy use is attributable to domestic dwellings. My figure is not quite as high as 30 per cent, but perhaps it matters not: it is a very high proportion.
	I am afraid that I cannot say much about what will be in the climate change review. It might be that this Question could be asked again—I am not encouraging the noble Lord to do so—in two or three months, but the noble Lord is right to say that we have to look at further ways of fiscally incentivising those who produce energy-saving products and those who receive them. Although I have mentioned a couple of the ways in which we are already dealing with the matter, the noble Lord will know that there are other ways of promoting energy saving—for example, product labels, home information packs and regulatory measures—but the role of incentives is also important.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, one can take the view that the present price of energy is sufficient to incentivise people, but that seems not to have had much effect yet. Is the Minister satisfied that the Government have done all that they can on what I would call the public relations front to incentivise people? More important, have they done everything possible to make sure that there are no regulatory obstacles to any householder who is attempting to make his house more energy-efficient?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I can answer the noble Lord with a "yes", as the Government have done the things that he asks. The issue of climate change, in which I know that the noble Lord is passionately interested, has meant that there is a requirement to raise public understanding way beyond its present level. As the noble Lord knows, we have launched the Climate Change Challenge Fund, which has available to it £12 million up until 2007–08. The intention is to try to persuade people and inform them of the dangers of climate change from the bottom up; it seems to work better that way than from the top down. That is an essential part of what the Government must do to make more people aware of this real danger.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, would my noble friend consider that one highly important way in which the Government could start to encourage the saving of household energy is in your Lordships' House itself? Judging by the dilapidated windows in this place and the amount of cold air coming through them and elsewhere, there is more wastage than in many households throughout the country.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am surprised to hear my noble friend say that. All noble Lords are highly conscious of energy issues, but if there is any waste of energy in your Lordships' House I am sure that the authorities will do their utmost to stamp it out at once.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, given the recently announced European Commission proposals for the first steps in creating a co-ordinated energy supplies market throughout Europe—now also with the 10 additional countries—will the Government make a special point at the next council of energy Ministers of discussing energy saving by households, factories and office buildings in all European countries, so that the best ideas come from all member states about how to make a real breakthrough in energy saving?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's idea.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on from the question put by my noble friend Lord Watson, will the Minister indicate whether the Government have seriously considered the proposal put forward by the Energy Saving Trust that direct fiscal incentives should be given to householders to save energy by reductions in council tax?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Energy Saving Trust, which has existed since 1992 to promote the sustainable and efficient use of energy, received £27 million in government grant in the current financial year. It has an important role in helping to meet the Government's climate change targets. I do not know the precise answer to the noble Lord's question, but I shall write to him on that.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, will the Minister explain to his noble friend that any cold air getting in through the windows of this building is more than fully compensated by the hot air that is generated inside?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I would not dare do that.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Lord Dholakia: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the recording of telephone conversations by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, following assurances given to the Metropolitan Police Authority that calls will not be recorded without the participant's consent, Her Majesty's Government consider the matter closed. We continue to have full confidence in Sir Ian Blair and support him fully in his vital role. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, will shortly be issuing guidance to forces on the recording of telephone conversations to eliminate any future uncertainty in this area.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. We share the hurt and pain that must have been caused to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. Does the Minister accept that we have the most disaster-prone Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? He assumed a political role in relation to ID cards; he prevented the IPCC conducting a legal investigation; he made insensitive remarks about the Soham murders; and now he seems to have been found recording private telephone conversations. Will the Minister, first, ask HMIC to discover how many such conversations have been recorded and, secondly, ask the police committee of the Greater London Authority whether Sir Ian is a fit and proper person to run the Met?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General believes that the matter is closed and has been absolutely properly dealt with. Secondly, I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord that Sir Ian Blair is a disaster or an accident-prone commissioner. If one looks at the safety of London since he became commissioner, one sees that he has discharged his duty with honour. The numbers of violent and other offences have been dealt with, and we know that Her Majesty's Inspectorate will continue properly to discharge its duty.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, which is, incidentally, not the police committee of the GLA. Does my noble friend the Minister recognise that under the leadership of Sir Ian Blair as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police we have seen crime in London at its lowest level for five years, the number of non-terrorist murders at its lowest level for 10 years and the sanction detection rate increase by 70 per cent? As for the transformation of the Metropolitan Police, we are now seeing 50 per cent of those who are applying to join and to train as police constables coming from black or minority ethnic communities. Is that not a record that should be supported, and should we not do all in our power to sustain it into the future?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend without reservation.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will the Minister take the opportunity to repudiate some reports that have appeared in newspapers suggesting that the story may have come from people in the office of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General? It would be very helpful if the Minister made it clear that no one in the Government had any association with briefing the newspapers about the story.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have absolutely no indication that that is the case. We are clear that the Government have behaved appropriately in the matter and have responded in a way that is proper.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, when I ring the Minister's office, I assume always that someone will be listening and writing down what I say or recording it in order that there is a proper record. Would the Minister agree with me that that is a regular part of good administration? I, for my part, cannot understand what the fuss is about on that particular point. Could she clarify that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I could not have put it more elegantly.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that there have been too many slurs on the commissioner in the House today? Does she agree that the attacks that have been made on him from the Liberal and Conservative sides of the House are utterly wrong?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as far as I am aware, the only side of the House that has attacked the commissioner has been the Liberal Democrat Benches. I may have been wrong, but I did not take it that there had yet been an attack on the commissioner's integrity or the way in which he had discharged his duty from Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, could the Minister clarify where the law is in that regard, quite apart from recent events? I understand that it is legal if one records a telephone conversation without telling the person on the other end but that it is not if the recording is passed to anybody else. Does that mean that a secretary cannot in fact produce a transcript of that conversation?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, to give a full answer I would have to take some time, not least because the noble Baroness is touching on the interception of telephone calls, which is covered by Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and we would have to talk about the RIPA position. In essence, what the noble Baroness said is right, but I can write to her about the detail. Nothing that she has said at the moment would cause any difficulty. The secretary keeping a note and not publishing it to anyone would not, as far as I am aware, contravene any provision—but I shall write more fully to the noble Baroness.

Lord Imbert: My Lords, we have heard the case for the prosecution; is it not now time to pause and hear the case for the defence? We are awaiting a report from the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and that should be brought into the public arena before we have a public hanging.
	I speak as a redundant commissioner, and I confess that whenever talking to senior public officials I would make a record of our conversation. As a young constable, I learnt to write shorthand at over 100 words a minute, so I did not have to resort to the modern method of recording. I confess also that I did not tell my correspondents that I was making a note, and they did not tell me that they were recording what I said.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will never be redundant to the House. His contribution is well made. I agree with him that we should properly await the outcome of the forthcoming investigations.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that callers to the Attorney-General's office are occasionally told that all calls are being recorded for training purposes?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I believe that that is correct.

Animal Welfare Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

BBC Charter Review: Select Committee Report

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the 2nd Report of the Select Committee on the BBC Charter Review (2nd Report, HL Paper 128) be referred to a Grand Committee.— (Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Identity Cards Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	COMMONS AMENDMENTS
	[The page and line references are to Bill 28 as first printed for the Commons.]
	MOTION A
	16 Clause 5, page 4, line 44, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"
	22 Clause 8, page 7, line 42, leave out "must" and insert "may, if the individual so chooses,"
	The Commons disagree to these amendments for the following reason—
	22A Because the Commons consider it appropriate that a person applying for a designated document be required at the same time to apply to be entered in the Register and to have an ID Card issued to him
	The Lords insist on their Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 for the following reason— 
	22B Because the Lords consider it inappropriate that a person applying for a designated document be required at the same time to apply to be entered in the Register and to have an ID Card issued to him
	The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 but propose Amendment No. 22C in lieu
	22C Page 4, line 45, after "include" insert "or be accompanied by"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22C in lieu.
	Amendment No. 22C was agreed by the other place on Monday 13 March by a majority of 33 votes. At the same time, I will seek to persuade your Lordships not to accept Motion A1 of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, amending Motion A. That would have the effect of reinstating Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, which would unpick the linkage between designated documents and identity cards.
	Amendment No. 22C is largely technical. It clarifies Clause 5 by adding, where it says that an application for a designated document,
	"must include an application to be entered on the Register",
	the words "or be accompanied by" after "include". We have already enjoyed the delightful opportunity on two separate occasions to discuss Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 at length. The first was on Report on 23 January and the second was on consideration of Commons amendments on 6 March. On the latter occasion we had an extensive argument about the manifesto and the commitments that were made thereby, and for the purpose of today's debate I do not intend to refer to those issues again. I do not intend to spend very long now repeating the arguments we have had on previous occasions as to why the Government believe the Bill should not be amended in the way proposed in Amendments Nos. 16 and 22.
	We believe there is a persuasive reason for the linkage that exists in the Bill as it now returns to your Lordships' House. Last week, we started to phase in the issue of e-passports, incorporating a facial image biometric. Once we have moved on to the next phase of biometric passports, including facial image and fingerprint biometrics, anyone applying for a passport will have to go through the same sort of application process as for an identity card and will have their personal details and biometrics recorded on a central passport database. Without the linkage with identity cards, this would be without the safeguards that we have introduced into this procedure by virtue of this Bill.
	Our plans to link passports and identity cards have a long history. This should, therefore, not come as a surprise to anyone. I wish simply to summarise the chronology. In July 2002, the Government issued their first consultation document about a card scheme and one of the options canvassed was for a universal scheme linked to passports. In November 2003, we announced the decision in principle to introduce identity cards. It was then made clear that there would be a two-stage scheme. In the initial stage, as well as introducing a voluntary plain identity card for those who do not have a passport, we would link identity cards to more secure passports. In Identity Cards— The Next Steps, the policy document published in November 2003 (Cm 6020), we stated at paragraph 16(ii):
	"linking more secure passports and perhaps eventually driving licences to the scheme on a compulsory basis so that they will be acceptable forms of identity card. By linking the card scheme to widely held identity documents most people will get a card conveniently and automatically as they renew an existing document".
	In April 2004, we published the draft Identity Cards Bill, and the same word, "must", was included in Clause 5(2) as we are now debating. We were again very clear that in the initial stage of the identity cards scheme there should be no possibility of obtaining a designated document, such as a passport, without an identity card. Paragraph 2.17 of the consultation paper on the draft Identity Cards Bill, published in April 2004, (Cm 6178) said:
	"Once a document such as a passport has been designated as an ID card, this will be the only form in which it will be available—i.e. there will be no 'non-ID card' variants. It would undermine confidence in the system if there were to be identity documents available, on demand, at different levels of security".
	In November 2004, we introduced the first Identity Cards Bill, which was agreed by the other place and passed at Second Reading by this House in March 2005. The same provision requiring applicants for passports or other designated documents to obtain an identity card was included in that Bill.
	In May 2005, this Bill was reintroduced. Yet again, we made it absolutely clear that, once designated, obtaining a passport would also mean being issued with an identity card. That is the background against which we now consider what happened in this Bill.
	I believe we have been clear and consistent on this point. The Government have listened and made concessions on a number of other points in the Bill, including: the requirement to publish the six-monthly estimates of cost; the removal of Clauses 6 and 7, to bring forward compulsion by secondary legislation; as well as a large number of other technical amendments, many originally proposed in this House by noble Lords opposite to clarify and to improve the Bill.
	That is the function of this House: to clarify, to improve, to amend, to ask the other place to think again and, if necessary, to think again. The simple fact is that this Bill, with the provisions in Clauses 5 and 8 linking designated documents and identity cards, was passed by the House of Commons on 18 October.
	The Lords Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 were rejected by the elected House by a majority of 31 on 13 February this year and again, by a majority of 33, on 13 March. If necessary, these amendments will continue to be resisted strongly by the Government, and the other place will continue to make its voice heard.
	We have the result of having asked the other place to think again. We have debated this issue and voted on it, and it has been rejected twice by the elected House. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether this is not the moment when this House should give way to the elected Chamber, because our role is to review and not to wreck.
	If that is so, there comes a moment when we have to bow to the other place. I would respectfully suggest that we would honour the function of this House better if we did that with a degree of grace.
	I simply ask, therefore, that your Lordships consider whether it would be proper and in the tradition of this House to go further. I remember with great clarity what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he was pressed on this matter on Radio 4. He responded:
	"At the end of the day the House of Commons will have its say".
	It has spoken. It has spoken loudly. Its voice is rising, and I do not think that we need a cacophony to tell us that the time has now arrived. Therefore, I move that your Lordships' House should not insist on Amendments Nos. 16 and 22 and that, having done a valiant job, we should now bow and accept in lieu Amendment No. 22C, proposed by the other place.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22C in lieu.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: rose to move, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, and do disagree with Commons Amendment No. 22C in lieu".

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in the House of Commons two days ago just 60 minutes were allotted to debate the amendment that we passed in this House on Monday of last week by a majority of 61, making the ID card scheme voluntary. It overturned us on a heavily whipped vote by a majority of 33. None of the 14 speakers, besides the Home Secretary, supported the Government.
	By far the major part of the Home Secretary's opening and closing—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, tell your Lordships' House what the difference is between the whip in the House of Commons on that particular day and the whip that the Liberal Democrats have on today?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I was hoping to get into my amendment, but I will answer the noble Lord's point. There is a huge difference in terms of severity. The noble Lord shakes his head—I shall leave it at that and continue with my speech.
	By far the major part of the Home Secretary's opening and closing speeches were devoted to trying to reinterpret the Labour Party manifesto at the election last year. At col. 1249 he quoted from the manifesto—and these words have been repeated several times:
	"'We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports'".
	Having repeated that, Mr Clarke continued:
	"Passports are voluntary documents—[Laughter.]"—
	that was not me, but Hansard—
	"Well, of course they are.",
	said Mr Clarke. He continued:
	"No one is forced to renew a passport if they choose not to do so".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/06; col. 1249.]
	I am afraid that my primary school teacher, Miss Lovelace, would have give Mr Clarke 0 out of 10 for that. She would have pointed out in the sweetest way, because she was never nasty to a wayward child, that the word "voluntary" in that sentence related to ID cards, not passports. It plainly did not say or mean to say, "We will introduce ID cards initially on a compulsory basis as people renew their passports voluntarily". Indeed, more than 80 per cent of the population have passports. Yet that is the cock-eyed interpretation that is now pressed on the public by a Government who seem to be losing their sense of shame.
	Only an administration that desperately needed to dis-impale itself from the hook of its own making would resort to such double-speak. If this was a City prospectus, the financial equivalent of an election manifesto, the FSA would be down on it like a ton of bricks. The Square Mile may not be a beacon of moral scrupulousness, but it would scoff at the verbal gymnastics being employed by the Government. Noble Lords should listen to the Home Secretary again. In the same speech, he stated:
	"That position is that the scheme will initially be based on a stand-alone identity card, issued on its own on a voluntary basis, or together with a document such as a passport, which is also issued on a voluntary basis. That seems to be clear and unequivocal".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/06; col. 1249.]
	Conceivably, Mr Clarke, that is so, but only so long as you do not link the two, as the designation process under Clauses 4 and 5 does, and only so long as the designation process does not, in making that link, force the citizen seeking or renewing a passport to take out an ID card as well. But that is precisely what it does. It staggers me that we are still discussing that point. Try that argument out on anyone in the high street or in a pub and you will get an "are you mad?" look.
	The inglorious reality is that the reason the Labour manifesto last year talked only of "voluntary" ID cards, was to disarm the opposition that was already apparent from civil liberties lobbies, among whom there are many Labour voters and for whom the issue of compulsion was important, if not vital.
	When Mr Clarke wound up on Monday, he stepped yet deeper into his own verbal bog, arguing that what really matters is not the manifesto at all, but what was said before the manifesto—namely what was in the Bill published in 2004. Indeed, the noble Baroness gave us a long peroration today of what happened before the manifesto. But that, too, is patently feeble. We all know full well that what matters for the purposes of the manifesto mandate—and the Salisbury convention—is what is in the manifesto. You cannot sanctify manifestos by claiming, as the Commons regularly does, the right to override this place on the basis of commitments in them—most recently on the Hunting Bill—and, at the same time, ignore a particular commitment on the grounds that you do not much like it and have had second thoughts. We know full well that manifestos sometimes very intentionally change old policies and priorities and adopt new ones to attract wider public support at elections. If, besides scanning the 111 pages of Labour's last manifesto, the public are also supposed to have reviewed what Labour Ministers said and what Bills were before this House and the other place in the previous year or two, the situation would be as daft as it would be unrealistic. What would the poor voter be supposed to make—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, while the noble Lord is in the middle of this argument, I put it to him that he may be confusing two separate, albeit related, issues. One is what is included in the manifesto and the other is the primacy of the elected House. Will he deal with the second one, which is the matter before us today?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I can deal with it very simply. I am the first and last to acknowledge the primacy of the other House. I would never challenge it for a second. But here we are dealing with an exceptional case in which this House is seeking to uphold the manifesto of the Government, and that is the truth of it. I shall continue if I may.
	What would the poor voter be supposed to do, confronted with a Bill, which, as we said, came before the other place and this place before the manifesto, which says one thing, and the later manifesto, which says another? It is perfectly clear that the manifesto is what counts when the electorate go to the polls. It will not do for the Government to argue otherwise, in particular, because the Home Secretary is, after all, the embodiment and guardian of law and order, and that in turn depends on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I sincerely say to the House that the example being set by the Government in this instance is self-damaging—indeed, it damages us all at a time when public trust in politics is already fraying. I say all this with genuine reluctance because I recognise what a hugely difficult job the Home Secretary does and what ability, energy and, in normal circumstances, decency the present incumbent brings to that onerous task.
	Before I sit down, I need to say a word about the effects of our amendments because they have still apparently not hit home. Mr Clarke's first argument on Monday, and we heard it again this afternoon, was that unless, as he put it, the processes of taking out a passport and taking out an ID card were merged—that was his word—citizens would be deprived of what he called,
	"the statutory safeguards provided by the Bill, such as the creation of a national identity scheme commissioner".
	The answer to that is simple. If you believe that there are extra safeguards by having an ID card, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness said last week, you will no doubt take out your voluntary ID card. That is fine. That is up to each of us to decide.
	It is also for us to decide whether or not we better protect our identity against fraud by having an ID card. Again, voluntarism is best: first, because there is considerable disagreement as to whether the ID card will do that—I refer to the honey-pot risk—and, secondly, because the overhanging and perhaps dominant issue in the general debate is whether we should be forced to hand over to the state the mass of Schedule 1 information that will create the database standing behind every card, as Tony McNulty, the Minister, put it on 13 February. Here, again, I am afraid that misleading statements have been made, most recently on Monday, when the Home Secretary said:
	"The same data will be held in both cases".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/06; col. 1250.]—
	referring, of course, to ID cards on the one hand and passports on the other. The noble Baroness gave a comparable impression to that in our debate on 6 March, although she has not done so today.
	For a passport, you need give only your present principal address, compared with the prospect for ID cards under Clause 1 of providing not only all your addresses in the UK and abroad, but the time you have spent at each of those addresses—back without limit. Your file at the ID registry will also contain 13 categories of personal reference numbers, compared with one or none for the passport, plus your record, registration and ID card history, validation information, security information, and, above all, your intimate audit trail information. None of that is needed for a passport.
	Why do the Government continue to pretend otherwise? Add to that the danger of future pressure to add to the list of required data and the managerial imperative—the economic rationalisation—favouring merger of all state information on to the ID register. The Information Commissioner was surely right to deliver his sombre warning last October.
	Like the noble Baroness, I do not propose to repeat the general arguments that I and many others of your Lordships deployed on 6 March, and earlier, in support of the Motion. Suffice it to say that this uniquely complex centralised scheme is ill thought-through, incompletely costed, hugely costly, technologically risky and corruptible both internally and externally. Furthermore, the ambitious claims made for it have steadily lost weight as they have been subjected to detailed scrutiny in this place and beyond it. A compulsory scheme will add to what has become, I am sad to say, a surveillance state of unparalleled reach among democracies. What is more, the majority of our EU partners either have no cards or voluntary ID cards.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, picked out Sweden, Finland and Denmark at the end of her speech last week to support her case, and said that they were "hardly totalitarian states". How true, but let us consider the facts. Sweden introduced a simple national ID card on 1 October last year, but it is voluntary. Finland has a simple and voluntary card. Denmark does not have an ID card at all.
	Our Motion would allow those who favour cards, for whatever reason, to have them voluntarily without the compulsion of the Government's proposals. Very many would have cards; very many would not. I received a message when I arrived this afternoon from a woman who said that she represented a large number of embattled and battered women. She said, "For goodness sake, don't let them have compulsory cards because the register will be fallible and we will be vulnerable".
	Over time, compulsion is likely to have a profoundly damaging impact on that trust and allegiance of the citizen towards the state and its organs without which our most cherished hopes and, indeed, the stated aims of the Government in this Bill cannot be realised. We and the Conservatives have abandoned the other several votes that were taken and won in this House during the Bill's passage. This is not conceivably a wrecking amendment, but a saving one. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 16 and 22, and do disagree with the Commons Amendment No. 22C in lieu".—(Lord Phillips of Sudbury.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support Motion A1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and oppose government Motion A. The objective of the noble Lord's Motion is admirably simple. It would enact the Government's manifesto commitment. The Minister said that she does not want to return to that lengthy argument and instead gave us a history of other government documents—all of which I have read because that is my job. The public, who go to vote in a general election as their citizens' duty, rely on a manifesto. If we cannot rely on it, why bother with elections at all?
	The manifesto commitment said that the Government would introduce ID cards, including biometric data, such as fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out, initially, on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports. This Bill and the Government's Motion would not do that. For all those who need a new passport, it would make the right to leave this country conditional, on us coming into compulsion, on being entered on the register and on buying an ID card. I could not put it better than the Minister's honourable friend, Mr Mark Fisher, did in another place on Monday evening this week. He said:
	"If we believe in a voluntary scheme, as the Home Secretary and the manifesto say that we do, there is no way that we can reject the Lords amendments . . . By rejecting the amendments, the Government will be opting for compulsion".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/06; col. 1260.]
	Mr Fisher is right.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I shall be happy to give way to the noble Lord if he is to say that his honourable friend has been misquoted. I see that is not the case, so I do not give way.
	Compulsion it would be—compulsion by stealth, but compulsion no less. The government amendment in lieu does not change that. It is not just technical; it is cosmetic. I do not give way unless the noble Lord is to say that the government amendment is more than cosmetic. Perhaps he will wait until there is a relevant part of my speech on which he would like to intervene. If he wishes to speak on the government amendment, I shall give way.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In this House, as in others, for a good debate it is essential for these kinds of interventions to take place. That seems to be sensible. The noble Baroness has been very helpful in e-mailing me various points following last week's debate. She is very anxious to ensure that we maintain and keep to our commitments in our manifesto. Suppose we had agreed in our manifesto to double international development assistance but we quadrupled it. Would that be keeping to our manifesto commitment? I think it would. If we go beyond and improve on our manifesto commitments we do better than we promised.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am always so pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I sometimes think he is my greatest ally on the Benches opposite. When I consider the manifesto commitments on education reform and what is happening in another place today, on reforming the health service and on smoking issues, of course, the noble Lord is right to point out that this Government can be relied on to abandon their manifesto commitments. He asked whether I would allow interventions and explained how important they are. What a pity that the Home Secretary in another place refused to do so on Monday night.
	The Government's technical amendment would simply mean that compulsory application to the register with a designated document could be made either on one form or two, so compulsion by stealth is still there. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said, we are then left with a huge audit trail of our lives. In the course of proceedings on the Bill we have heard many arguments. The Home Secretary has many admirers in this House and in another place. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that for much of the time I am one of those admirers, but I believe that the argument put forward on Monday by the Home Secretary was surely one of the most extraordinary that we have yet heard and it should not be given house room by any Member of either House. He said that the manifesto commitment that a scheme would be voluntary would be true even in a regime where free British people would not be allowed a passport to travel unless they paid up and enrolled for an ID card because,
	"That is the free will that people may exercise in deciding whether or not they wish to have a passport . . . That is the free will over what they can do and how they can operate. That is what the wording means".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/06; col. 1261.]
	Oh, that George Orwell were alive today to hear those words. The Home Secretary says that it is all free will. I do not think that that is a definition of freedom that our parents and grandparents had in mind when they took up arms to defend it. On 6 March, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said (at col. 570 of the Official Report) that we should not exploit "infelicitous" drafting. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has had direct experience of drafting manifestos. Maybe she has. If she has, she will know that every word, in every sentence, in every manifesto is pored over, discussed, decided and cleared at the highest level. The pledge that ID cards would be rolled out voluntarily will have been agreed personally by the Prime Minister, as it would by every Prime Minister, and by the Home Secretary. So the Government must have decided deliberately on the wording in the manifesto. They had the chance to state openly in the manifesto that, if elected, they would force us all to be registered and to pay for an ID card, but they chose not to do so.
	Under the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the individual would have a real choice and genuine free will and, if they wished, they could choose to go on the register and have an ID card. There is nothing to stop them. The individual could have exactly what the Home Secretary is trying to say that they have; they would have free will—free will to have a passport and, separately, the free will to have an ID card.
	The Home Secretary and the Minister have repeated their Second Reading arguments about the purposes of the scheme. The Home Secretary went into some detail on Monday night. I simply remind the Minister as gently as I can that we set out five clear tests on purposes in Committee. We took great care to go through them, but the Government have failed to come up to scratch on each one. We believe there are quite simply other and better ways of securing our safety, reducing the fraudulent use of services, and managing migration—ways that would not pose a risk to our freedom to the extent that this grandiose scheme will do, and that would be more financially prudent. Even government departments have recognised that. The Minister in charge of the Bill in the other place, Mr Burnham, confessed to the press that government departments have not exactly been rushing to him with cheques in their hands to sign up to the Home Office scheme.
	The Minister argued last week, as has the Home Secretary outside this House, that we should be bound by the advice of the Wakeham commission in recommendation 7 of its report—a report that the Government have not fallen over themselves to implement in other areas. The commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, recommended that the House should be cautious about challenging the clearly expressed views of another place on issues of policy. I entirely agree. We are always cautious, but every now and then come fundamental issues of freedom and ancient liberty. I believe this is one such issue.
	We agree with the view of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which said:
	"we continue to believe that the constitutional significance of the Bill is that it adjusts the fundamental relationship between the individual and the State".
	If we believe that a government have got the balance wrong on such a significant matter, and one that is not covered by the manifesto, surely, if we have any role in this Parliament, we should have the right to insist on our view. I therefore strongly urge this House to support the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and to defend the right of the people of this country to exercise their free will.

Lord Eatwell: My Lords, surely the noble Baroness, in urging the House to accept the amendment, will also want to consider its cost to the Exchequer. She has referred to the cost of the proposal. Surely maintaining two registers will increase the costs. Will she tell us the cost of the amendment which she is supporting?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I will be delighted to do so as soon as the Government are prepared to tell us the costs of their scheme. So far, they have refused.
	In urging the House to follow this road, it is important that we uphold the right for the people, not the Government, to decide voluntarily if they want to be enrolled for an ID card. Why do the Government not trust the people to exercise their free will? That is my advice to the Government; trust the people, and accept Motion A1.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, first, may I say what pleasure it gives me that the alliance on the other side continues? Every week that the relationship continues these days is good.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, says that nothing undermines the state of politics more than passing a Bill of this kind. I say to him that nothing undermines people's trust and confidence in politics than a Bill that is increasingly supported by a majority of the people, that people want to be enacted, and that has twice been approved by the other place—an elected assembly—but which the alliance opposite believes should be rejected. It is that which is undermining the political process and undermining trust.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred to the surveillance society and the noble Baroness last week referred to this being a fascist Bill. I can tell her what fascism is: it is the destruction of the individual. This Bill is about recognising the individual and giving the individual an identity. Members opposite laugh. That is because they do not have a clue, frankly, what the people of this country think. They do not understand why the people of this country wish to have identity cards.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly give way? Can he say how he personally knows what the people of this country think? Can he also tell me why I need an identity? I already have an identity. I know who I am.

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, the first way in which I know is that there was a general election—a party won and a party lost—and this measure was in the manifesto. The union opposite distorts what, to me, is a clear move towards a stage of compulsion. That is the first way.
	The second way—I know this is modern—is that we asked people.

Baroness Elles: My Lords, can the noble Lord state what was in the manifesto, as he knows it so well?

Lord Gould of Brookwood: My Lords, the manifesto states quite clearly that it will be the case that as people apply for a passport they will, as time goes on, be able to have their identity card.
	I shall tell noble Lords opposite why I know what the public think: it is because we asked them what they think, and they said that they support identity cards—and they support identity cards in significant numbers, with a great majority. It is such a failure for the House and Members opposite not to understand that if the people's will is rejected time and time again, confidence in this process will be undermined. I say to the House that enough is enough. Let us follow the will of the people. Let us trust the people, as the noble Baroness opposite said, and let us move on.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may say in answer that if it is really the case that the people were mad enough to choose voluntarily to bring themselves under a system of compulsion which will expose the innermost secrets of their lives to identity theft, which is already growing and which will make them extremely vulnerable, I am very disappointed in the public. I would be most interested to meet the kind of people the noble Lord meets because I can imagine no one saying, "Yes, I want a passport, but I also insist on having compulsorily an identity card which will put me at risk".
	Incidentally, the very creation of such an enormous national identity register will be a present to terrorists; it will be a splendid thing for them to disrupt and blow up. It will also provide valuable information to organised crime and to the intelligence services of unfriendly countries. It will be accessible to all of these. I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe why anyone would voluntarily and enthusiastically come forward and say, "Do let me join this dangerous club".

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am not sure whether there have been many contributions from these Benches at the earlier stages of the Bill. I hope that this one brief contribution will be allowed now.
	I come to this matter in relation to the other Bills which have been before the House relating broadly to the area known as civil liberties. On those matters, I found myself siding quite clearly with the concerted opposition to the Government's proposals. However, on this matter I find myself more persuaded by the position the Government have taken, while accepting that there is a judgment to be made and, as with all these issues, a balance to be struck.
	We are told that to have identity cards and the national identity register as eventually a compulsory measure—and, as an interim step, a compulsory measure for those who have other documents—would fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state. We must recognise, however, that that relationship has been changing for a long time. A hundred years ago, you could travel anywhere in Europe, and get a job anywhere in Europe, without a passport. The world changed during the 20th century. Of course, restrictions were introduced during the two world wars. In the context of the 21st century, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, something like the proposal before us will come.
	For those reasons, I think that the Government are probably doing a sensible thing in taking this step. Technically, and in reality, it might be somewhat different—perhaps, to some noble Lords, very different—from what was in the manifesto. Is not it likely, however, that prevention of terrorism is precisely the area in which government thinking would move on relatively quickly? I agree that a great deal of information will be provided that currently is not provided when we apply for a passport, but I find the description of the details to be requested as the innermost secrets of our lives or an intimate audit trail to be an overstatement. I note, however, that we must give the date of our death as part of the information, which is perhaps food for thought.
	In the 21st century, we face difficult threats to determine and assess. We live in an ever more global age in which, to some degree, there is a clash of civilisations—perhaps of several different civilisations— with a whole series of interfaces. Our global culture of communications and travel makes that extremely sensitive and difficult. I believe that it would be wise for the House to accept the will of the other place on this matter and then to concentrate on the things that really matter—how the register is to be protected, how it is to be safeguarded, how it is to be used, and all the other questions including costs.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the right reverend Prelate, but I am not sure that this is the appropriate time for a Second Reading speech. Had he been in the House at earlier stages he would have heard all the debate about the protection of the register and the other points that he raises.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I believe that I am responding to the points that have already been made in the debate.
	To conclude, it is a balance, but on this matter I believe that I can in good conscience go with the Government.

Lord Monson: My Lords, in her winding-up speech on this matter nine days ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, suggested in so many words, at col. 568 of the Official Report, that acquiring an identity card was no more cumbersome or intrusive than acquiring a new biometric passport. At that point it was clear that the House was anxious to proceed swiftly to a Division, so I did not intervene. Will she now concede, however, that there is one major difference between ID cards and biometric passports? A person who acquires a biometric passport will not be obliged to inform central government every time he or she moves house, on pain of a penalty of up to £1,000. It is this prospect that will infuriate members of the public once they discover it, which, at the moment, very few have.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I intervene with reluctance. I say immediately that I have no intention of debating identity cards in what I have to say. Unlike Mozart's music, hearing the speeches on this subject once is enough. We do not need to hear them several times, as seems to be offered at the moment.
	This is not about identity cards. It is a serious constitutional question about the relationship between this House and the other place. I am just about to enter my 20th year here, and I know of no example of misbehaviour—I use that word advisedly—of this House corresponding to what is being proposed at present. We are a scrutiny House and any legitimacy that we have is based on our dispassionate scrutiny of legislation. Our role is to expose the nature of Bills and to ask the other place whether it would like to think again. I remind your Lordships that the Government do not have a majority in this House, nor do the Official Opposition. In my judgment, there will never, in our lifetimes or beyond, be a majority in this House for an elected government in this country. The House will always be as it is now, balanced broadly between the Government and the principal Opposition, with plenty of other Peers as well.
	Unless the Official Opposition have come to the conclusion that they will never form the government of this country again, they are behaving in the most foolhardy way imaginable in suggesting that we should send this back to the Commons yet again. The other House may be wrong—I do not want to argue about that; it is often wrong—but it is the elected Chamber. I thought that we had for some time accepted that it was the primary Chamber, and whether it was right or wrong, it must get its own way. I have not the slightest doubt about that. Noble Lords who are in favour of the amendment may well be right—I do not know as I do not have the expertise. But whether we are right or wrong is now completely irrelevant to what is confronting us. What is confronting us is a very deep constitutional matter. We have asked the other place to think about this twice, and twice is sufficient. Not only would it be unconstitutional, but I advise noble Lords opposite that if they are ever in government again, they will be deeply sorry if they create a precedent on this matter today.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I feel that it is right to respond to the very serious point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. His argument is based on the convenience of government not the rights of Parliament. I argue that what we are talking about are the rights of Parliament.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord because he probably has a lot more to say, but "convenience" is an understatement. I think we are discussing something much deeper than the convenience of government; we are discussing the rights and wrongs of the position of this House relative to the other place when we have done our scrutiny job. And no one could accuse us of not doing our scrutiny job.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I understand now and I can follow the noble Lord's argument even better.
	It was very interesting to hear the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Gould. It was nice to see the sorcerer's apprentice in the flesh, telling us how these things are done. On the substance of the argument, voluntary means voluntary and compulsory means compulsory. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Gould, to tell us whether one of his focus groups tested those two words before the general election. I suspect it did. The reason that "voluntary" went in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, pointed out, is that it is a softer and more acceptable word.
	I took part in writing four manifestos and fought on two, so I know a little about them. Some are kept, some are changed and some are quietly forgotten. The issue here, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has rightly said, is the relative responsibilities of our two Houses. I do not accept that the Salisbury convention stands any more. It is absurd that a convention set up 60 years ago between a Labour government with 48 per cent of the electorate behind them and a wholly hereditary, Conservative-dominated House of Lords should still apply, with a Labour Government elected by 34 per cent of the vote and Labour now the largest party in the House.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us what percentage he believes one should have to govern this country?

Lord McNally: My Lords, clearly they have the right to govern this country on 34 per cent, but I think it is a very dangerous percentage—a very dangerous percentage from which to appeal to manifesto commitments and a very dangerous percentage from which to ask this Parliament to start giving away some of its powers.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Surely the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was that the House should accept the words in the manifesto. That is the Salisbury doctrine. The noble Lord is therefore picking and choosing, as we would expect him to do, those items in the manifesto with which he agrees and which he will therefore support. He will then say that the Salisbury convention does not apply to the items that he does not support.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that legislation is either well written or badly written. To start relying on a 60 year-old doctrine rather than the argument to get your legislation through—particularly when you have changed the wording to which you committed in the manifesto—is the last refuge of legislative scoundrels. What we are really debating today is what this House should do at this point.
	I know that the Minister has two means of addressing this House: sometimes she is charming, and sometimes she is scary. I suspect that this afternoon we are going to get "scary". We will be told what this House should not do, what it must not do and what it dare not do. But I suggest that the powers of this House were not given to it by James I or Charles II. They were given less than eight years ago by the democratic House of Commons. Included in those powers was the power to reject part or all of legislation. If we do not retain that sanction, then ping-pong becomes mere shadow boxing. All Ministers have to do is to sit pat, knowing that they will ultimately have their way. I therefore think it is very important in the relationship between the two Houses that this House retains the right to say no.
	The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has intervened about 12 times today. He makes me think of an American footballer from Chicago a few years ago called the Refrigerator. He was not very good at American football but he used to fall on opponents from a great height. I always think of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, as the Refrigerator of the government Benches. The fact, however, is that we have the Parliament Act. That ensures the right of the elected House to have its way. But this House must retain the right to say, "Not in our name". That is the process, and that is the process we are going through today.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the Parliament Act has been used four times since 1949. Three of those occasions were on free votes, not whipped votes. The only occasion when it was used on a whipped vote was the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. I will not go into detail, but that was a very special case and an arrangement between the parties. Since 1949, however, the Parliament Act has always been used on a free vote.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I shall end on the Parliament Act and the power of this House to say no. Last time, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, quoted Wakeham, which sent me back to a document that we greatly underestimated on its publication. I am glad that she drew our attention to it. Perhaps I may quote from it at greater length:
	"We take the general view that even the limited powers"—
	the power to say no—
	"to refer issues back for consideration or to impose a delay could, if exercised with restraint and only when occasion clearly demanded it, have a substantial political impact. If a reformed second chamber"—
	and we are a reformed second Chamber—
	"were to express concern about a particular Government proposal and exercise whatever powers of delay or referral were available, that would lead to (renewed) public and media interest in the issue, with opportunities for the concerns to be set out. It would force the Government to reconsider the issues in light of that interest, and it would give members of the House of Commons an opportunity to revisit the issues and make the final determination in the light of all relevant information. The Government of the day would have to take such powers and their consequences into account in drafting its legislation in the first place as well as seeking to put it on the statute book".
	That is my argument. The government of the day cannot come to the Dispatch Box at a late stage and say, "Whoops, sorry, it was infelicitously drafted".

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord McNally, therefore saying that we have now reached a pass where this House is entitled to veto the will of the other place?

Lord McNally: No, my Lords. The Minister will see that the machinery was in the 1998 Act. If this House says no, as it did over fox hunting, the other place—the democratically elected House—can and should prevail. But it has to take the consequences of that. When it comes to legislation as important as this—one of those rare occasions to which Wakeham referred—we have the right to say no. It is not a veto; it is this House using the powers that it was given by the democratically elected House. If you take that power away, you are left with an emasculated House of Lords and a House of Commons that is dominated by an over-powerful executive which was elected on a very small majority of votes. That is a very dangerous way to run a democracy. Lord Hailsham described it 30 years ago as an elective dictatorship. We are the barrier to that today.

Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may respond directly to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. His argument fell into two parts: first, that the House of Lords has the power to say no; and, secondly, that in this case it ought to say no. The argument would be nonsense if the second part were not taken in with the first. Let us examine the first part—that the House of Lords has the right to say no. I expect that it does. I do not have statutes in front of me, but I expect that what the noble Lord says about the legal position between the two Houses is probably right. But it is not a question of rights; it is a question of judgment. It is a question of whether it makes any sense in the operation of the British constitution for this House to insist on something which twice has been rejected by the House at the other end of the corridor.
	I am bound to say, looking at that part of the Opposition—not that part of it, but that part of it—that when they were in government they would conceivably—

Lord McNally: My Lords—

Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, I will not give way. I listened to the noble Lord in peace. He should subside for a time.
	I cannot imagine that the Conservatives, when they were in government, would conceivably have accepted a doctrine which in essence gives this House a veto over the decisions of the other House. It is not on. However you look at it, this House is nominated. This House is not elected; that House is elected.

Lord McNally: My Lords, then why not write into the 1998 Act or whichever legislation contains the next reform, "Two strikes and you're out"? Why leave in the power if you are assuming that it will never be used?

Lord Richard: My Lords, if we were today discussing a reform of the House of Lords Act, no doubt that is an issue that would be considered. I have sat through a number of these debates in the 15-odd years that I have been in this House. About once every 18 months, we have this absurd wrangle between the two Houses. Ping-pong is played. Ping-pong, frankly, is an absurd game anyway, played primarily by people—

A noble Lord: Be careful!

Lord Richard: I am warned, my Lords, and I take the warning. It is played primarily at least by people who are not constituted in the way that I am. However, that seems a pretty futile and absurd way in which to run a government and a country. This House has its views and that House has its views, but what is the relationship between the two? What the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is proposing is a relationship of almost permanent dissent and dispute. The noble Lord shakes his head at me but, with respect, that will do him no good. The fact is that we have to devise a system of resolving the differences between the two Houses. Until we have in this country a proper disputes resolution procedure such as the one written into the American constitution, then it will be the basic relationship between the elected House and the unelected House that continues to matter. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the House that should prevail ought to be the elected one.
	Should the elected House prevail now? That argument has gone round and round, but there is nothing new to be said on the issues. It is perfectly clear from some of the contributions from the other side that the argument is not about whether it should be tied to a passport, but whether there should be identity cards at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, was—to put it slightly neutrally—pretty strong in what she had to say about identity cards as such. That view was not shared by everyone in your Lordships' House and is certainly not shared by the general public.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, what I object to is a compulsory national identity register. I stay by that, and do not think it in any way inconsistent.

Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said. She said she objected to it being compulsory and could think of no conceivable reason why a sensible person would do it voluntarily. If that does not add up to anything other than an attack on the whole principle of the Bill, I do not know what it is.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am sorry, but I was saying that I could not see why anybody would wish to welcome a compulsory register, not a voluntary one.

Lord Richard: My Lords, I am delighted to hear what the noble Baroness has just said. It seems a slight variation on what she said before—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Richard: With respect, my Lords, it is. Read it tomorrow in Hansard and your Lordships will see so, but it is no worse for that.
	I finish on this note. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is raising profound constitutional issues. We all know that, yet the way he raises them will produce an almost permanent confusion between the unelected House and the elected one. I have no doubt whatever which one should prevail.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I have taken no part in any debate on this Bill so far, and I assure your Lordships that I shall be extremely brief. However, I have been stung by some things that were said by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
	The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that this debate is no longer about identity cards but about the respective or relative responsibilities of the two Houses. It would be irresponsible of this House, he said, to stand its ground at this stage; I believe that he used a word even stronger than irresponsible. Yet it is not only about the relative responsibility of the two Houses; it is also about the rights of the individual against the Executive. Those who are now the Executive gave the clearest promise to the people that identity cards would be rolled out on a voluntary basis. I can see no ambiguity at all in the manifesto—and ambiguity cannot be created out of it, however much they may wish to do so. That promise having been given, the Executive ought to be kept to it. That is why, on this occasion, I will vote in favour of the amendment.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Peston I have been a little involved in these debates and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on the whole question of being voluntary rather than compulsory. I shall also explain to them why I will not vote with them this evening.
	However, I wish that my noble friend would accept that, for 80 per cent of passport holders and, indeed, growing numbers wanting passports, it will not be voluntary. In that sense, it would be better if she conceded that particular point. That being said—and even if she accepted that—the fact is that, as my noble friend Lord Peston rightly said, this is now a bigger issue. This House has been voting in one way and the Commons has twice defeated the views of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, specifically said that he believes in the primacy of the other place. "However", he said, "this is an exception". Those were the words he used—or, "This is an exceptional case". I would be happy to give way if the noble Lord did not say that, but I see that he is not willing to proceed further on the matter. He said that the other place—the elected House—should be able to have its way, but that this case was exceptional, which was not what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. But I do not mind the Liberal Democrats disagreeing among themselves. That is perfectly reasonable.

Lord McNally: My Lords, how simple is it? The House of Commons can have its way via the Parliament Act. What is it there for, if it is not for such an impasse—a rare impasse? I am as much a House of Commons man as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, but to play with semantics about it is ridiculous. We have a right to say no, and the House of Commons has a right to prevail. That is simple.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, when he was writing manifestos, put that in. Maybe he did—but he lost on many of the manifestos that he wrote. It is not the point—of course, the House of Lords has the right to say no; I do not dispute that at all. The only question is how often it should be allowed to say no. I thought that my noble friend Lord Peston made an excellent point. For any party that wants to be in government to know that in this place it will never have a majority, however much this place is changed, and that it will always have to use the Parliament Act when it is defeated, umpteen times, is to turn this place into a nonsense.
	Of course, we have the right to say no. I welcome that—indeed, I voted on one occasion on this Bill to ask the other place to rethink. But the other place has "rethunk", to coin a phrase—it rethunk and voted twice. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, wants the other place to do it again; he is nodding his head. But why? How many times does he want the other place to do that? The thing is absurd.
	I am not concerned here with the manifesto or the Salisbury convention. The only people who seem to read our manifesto are the people on the opposition Benches. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who said—and I hope that I am quoting her correctly—that the public rely on it. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Gould believes that as well. But the idea that 60 million people read the manifesto, although I wish it were true—

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying what he seems to be saying, he is undermining totally the argument of his noble friend the Minister, because she is saying that everybody has read the manifesto and that they are agreeing to it.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I do not mind disagreeing with my noble friend—I do it often. I am making the central point that the elected House, which we all basically agree should have its way, has voted one way. I see that even the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is nodding in agreement with that—but he wants the other place to keep on having its way, I do not know how many times. The plain fact is that the other place must have its way. We have asked the other place twice and we have said no; to keep going on is wrong, and I shall certainly vote against the Motion proposed by the noble Lord.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, we do not have a power of veto in this House—all we have is the power to delay things. If we keep on voting no, they will then use the Parliament Act. The only consequence of that is that the Home Office will have to wait one more year before it can have its new, shiny, half-a-billion-pound-a-year department to issue the ID cards. That will be the sole consequence. Therefore, we might as well push the matter to the limit to point out that the Magna Carta established the concept that the Executive should not have an unfettered right to do what they want. Since then, Parliament has tried to control the Executive. Unfortunately, the balance of power has changed in another place over the past century in such a way that the Executive to a large extent now control another place and what goes through. The strange doctrine has arisen that the Government have the right to get their business through Parliament—meaning that the Executive have a right to get their business through Parliament. That is the tail wagging the dog and is the opposite of what Magna Carta said. We need to remember that.
	The other point, which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made so well, is that if governments are being elected by a minority of the electorate, what they put in their manifesto statement is very important because that is what the people put them up there to do. For them then to say that they have changed their mind is very dangerous, because you effectively have then elective dictatorship. That is what we are seeing happen. To answer the earlier question, if they had more than 50 per cent or perhaps 60 per cent of the electorate voting for them, maybe we might rethink. But until that situation arises, let us leave it as it is. We do not have a power of veto but we do have a power of delay. I see no problem in using it. It might change things, because it will give people time to think about the issue a bit harder and see whether they really do want to push the Bill through in a year's time.
	The right reverend Prelate said that people did not have to worry about things like this a century ago. In the 1850s Britain did not have passports and ID cards, and we could go to the Continent and do what we liked. The continentals could not; they had ID cards, and unless you were either a criminal and bribed your way or one of the ruling elite, you could not move around the place and work where you liked, which is part of the point of this entire debate. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Monson, because I am very annoyed that I will be one of the few people who will be liable to a £1,000 fine if I do not notify a change of address quickly enough when I need to renew my passport. Most of the population will be quite free of that obligation.

Lord Carter: My Lords, with regard to the Parliament Act, we ought to be entirely clear what we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have said, "Use the Parliament Act". That Act has been used only once on a whipped vote on a major item of government policy, and that was the Parliament Act 1949. The Acts since—the Act changing the age of consent, the Hunting Act and the War Crimes Act—were all passed on free votes. The only other one was the European Parliamentary Elections Act, which, as I know the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Henley, will remember, was an arrangement between the two parties.
	The official Opposition have to decide whether the killing of the Identity Cards Bill for a year or longer is the issue on which they wish to force the will of this House. I have just had a quick count: there are more than 20 former Members of the other House sitting on the opposition Benches. Perhaps they will win today. I think they intend to vote—it would be awfully hard for them not to do so today—but then the official Opposition will have to think very carefully indeed. Is this the issue on which they wish to create a precedent?
	Former Chief Whips have a very long memory. If the official Opposition create this precedent, we shall eventually use it. It will be a long time before they are in government, but we shall remember it. This is a major step: the first time since 1949 that the official Opposition have forced the use of the Parliament Act, which has been suggested. It will be interesting if we hear again from the official Opposition whether they agree with the use of the Parliament Act. I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, if he will tell me whether the official Opposition are prepared to envisage the use of the Parliament Act on this Bill.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I will probably be supporting them when they do.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I always thought the rules of the House were that you should listen to the whole of the debate before indulging yourself in it. However, on this occasion I am prepared to make an exception because of the kind invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
	This House should always proceed with caution when it is trying to defeat the Government, even when it is asking the House of Commons to think again on a Bill it has passed. Generally speaking, we do that; I think we always do that. What is so unusual about this aspect is that the Government have already been defeated on two occasions, and therefore this is the third occasion on which we are dealing with this matter.
	In this context, perhaps I may make three points. First, I think the House should proceed with caution and should deal with matters as controversial as this only when they are very few in number. This is the first time in this Session that we have come to an issue of this kind. Secondly, we should proceed only on an issue where there is good deal of public support for what this House is doing. Thirdly, we should not proceed if there are issues to do with the Salisbury convention. My noble friend and the Government may disagree about the use of the Salisbury convention; I am entirely satisfied that there are no Salisbury convention implications if the House were to return this small point back to another place.
	Let us look at the Parliament Act. The Government, in the House of Commons, have three choices: They can accept the will of this House, the amendment proffered by your Lordships; or they can amend it and seek some form of compromise. I must say that the ability to find a compromise between "may" and "must" is relatively limited, but there are great minds in the Home Office—perhaps they can find a way around this impasse. I am sure my noble friend Lady Anelay and, in another place, my right honourable friend David Davis would be very glad to meet the Home Office to discuss such a proposal. The third option is to do that which has been recommended by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. They would get their way but they would have to wait to get their Bill through the use of the Parliament Act. I have said many times that using the Parliament Act is a sign of failure of the parliamentary process. It may be that we have got to that stage. I do not think we have got to that stage quite yet. So I have no difficulty in answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. If the Government regard this as being so important that they should get their way, then the Parliament Act is there to do precisely that.

Lord Carter: My Lords, that was an extremely long intervention. Only one more sentence: it is not the first time this Session, it is the first time since 1949.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if I had been asked a few weeks ago whether I subscribed to the doctrine advanced by the noble Baroness, I would have had absolutely no hesitation in agreeing with her. It is an intolerable idea that an unelected Chamber should hold up the will of an elected Chamber. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, the noble Baroness has a skilled ability to move from being conciliatory to being scary. When she is being scary, she tells us that we are going to be elected. Well, roll on the day. Roll on the day that we are going to be elected.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords. I was simply pointing out that the other place is elected. Members have gone through the inconvenience of putting themselves up, answering questions and competing with others. Then the public—the people in this country who clearly have the real power—have the advantage of voting for them and choosing them; whereas many of us who have the privilege of sitting in this House arrive here by an entirely different means.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, looking at the parliamentary dobbins, and the unelected on the other side, I am not surprised that the noble Baroness takes that attitude. My view is: roll on the day that we are elected. I will tell the noble Baroness that if she likes to wait until that time, the constitutional crisis between this House and the other House will have been nothing compared to what happened before 1688. We will have a real crisis on our hands. I intend to vote vehemently—not only tonight but on any other night that it comes before this House—because I am against it. Furthermore, I am practising for opposition again in this House. I detest this Prime Minister. If I were to knock on doors in Arbroath or Montrose and say to people, "I want to be there, in the House of Lords. I wish to be elected, because I am going to help that nice Mr Blair get his legislation through". They are going to say, "Oh, no, we want you to get rid of the nasty Mr Blair". By the time that I am on the third doorstep, I will be changing my tune.
	I will not be part of an upper House that will accept a modified power, but I will argue that we ought to have absolutely coextensive powers with those of the House of Commons—if not slightly greater. I anticipate that, if that is what we are being threatened with at that time, we will have an electoral system for this House superior to that for the House of Commons. We will certainly not have any dodgy postal vote system round the country such as we have experienced in the recent past. I warn the noble Baroness that I am not in the least impressed by the argument of an elected Chamber fighting against an unelected Chamber. I am practising for the time that we are going to be elected—with which I am threatened—and so I shall vote.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I found the noble and learned Lord's intervention extraordinary. He will be very cautious about asperity of speech, but I think that he has gone very near its mark.
	Let us look at the position that we are in. In response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about my demeanour, I of course thank him for his compliment about charm. I take in good measure the fact that he finds me scary. I do not necessarily think that that is how the whole House finds me, but I am content if it is so.
	The Government do not rely on the Salisbury convention in our arguments; we rely on the fact that the amendments have been rejected twice by the elected House. As my noble friend Lord Carter pointed out, it is noble Lords opposite who are relying on what is—I regret to say—a perverse version of the Salisbury convention, according to which the Opposition can ignore the will of the elected House on the basis that they contend that we have not complied with our own manifesto.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, encourages the Government to rely on the Parliament Acts as a mode of general disposal for all our legislation. We need to pause long and hard in relation to that. The reason I say that that is the natural consequence of what he proposes is that, if history continues to repeat itself, this House will find itself in a position similar to this, time and again. We ask the other place to think again, and it does. We repeat our request, and it responds. Sometimes it gives this House huge pleasure when it responds, because it has the wisdom to agree with us. On other occasions, it has the audacity to disagree. It is entitled to its audaciousness because the people of this country elected it and did not elect us. Therefore it is entitled to have its say because, when the time comes, it is its Members—not us—who will go back to the country and say, "I plead for your vote", and the people of this country will have an opportunity to reject them.
	For so long as our constitution remains as it is, we in this House have the privilege of not suffering the consequences of our own conceit. Therefore, we have to think very carefully about how our conventions have evolved. The respect in which this House is held is rightly high because we have acted judiciously; that is our history. My noble friend Lord Carter is absolutely right to remind us that this would be the first time since 1949 when we would have departed from that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, sought to suggest that this was really only a tiny little amendment, of no fundamental consequence. In case there is any misunderstanding, this is one of the most fundamental clauses in the Bill. The reason that it is of fundamental importance is that it goes to the very root of how we have constructed the way in which ID cards will be implemented. It goes to costs, in terms of facilities. We need to understand its very nature.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, spoke about Sweden, Finland and Denmark. I say to him that we have to remember that they have compulsory population registers. That is what we were talking about: the register. That is an important consideration.
	Looking at the other issues that have been raised, I was taken aback that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, talked about abandonment of policies. I was trying to count in my mind how many policies noble Lords opposite have now abandoned—immigration policy, selective education, health passports and opposition to student fees. I would respectfully invite the noble Baroness to remember that the current leadership of her party has very little connection with that which went before. We have not abandoned these provisions or the way in which we dealt with this matter. We have affirmed and confirmed that what we said we were going to do we are about to do.
	I invite noble Lords to give real weight to what was said by the right reverend Prelate, who, if I may respectfully say so, expressed himself with great clarity, proportion and balance. My noble friend Lord Peston was right in his powerful intervention to remind the House of what our role is. The comments of my noble friends Lord Richard and Lord Barnett were also right. They have the sagacity to guide us, and I think that we should listen carefully.
	We now have to make a decision. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, talked about a major difference. On driving licences, we already have a provision that if one fails to notify a change of address, a £1,000 fine is liable. We know that that is the case. On these provisions, I remind your Lordships that the scheme that will operate under the first stage differs from the compulsory stage. We have already said that those matters are to be returned to. I will not again go through, as I did last time, the difference between the database and the information you have to provide for ID cards. I set it out on the previous occasion—I remind your Lordships that there are very few differences indeed.
	We have once again had the privilege of having a very extensive debate. One has to ask just a couple of questions. What is new in the arguments that we have explored today which differs from the two occasions when we discussed the matter before? If the noble Baroness opposite succeeds in the vote, we propose to ask the other place to think again, but on what basis? What is the new fact that they have failed to give adequate consideration to on the previous occasion that we are inviting them to consider again? I have not detected one. In that case, are we simply going to ask them again and again and again, until they—and, frankly, we—lose the will to continue?
	I hear reference to "the will to live", but I know that this House is more resilient. For as long as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, stays in his place, we can all know that we have a long journey yet to make.
	I know that noble Lords enjoy these debates, but there is a time when we have to come to an end. I hope that we have now absolutely exhausted ourselves in relation to this issue and that we will not have to return to it again—and we will not trouble the other place to shout even louder than on the two occasions that they have said "no".
	I propose that we now conclude and that this matter should not be pressed to a vote; if it is, I invite noble Lords to vote for this House's reputation and to vote for the other place.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the first thing to clarify is that, because the other place gave an amendment in lieu and did not simply reject our amendment, we are not at the end of the road. That may depress many of your Lordships, but I provide that information as a matter of fact.
	The other thing worth saying is that last Monday, the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, in levelling his defence against our proposal to make the scheme voluntary, did not in any sense call upon the constitutional justification of the Commons' position that has been the mainstay of the noble Baroness's closing speech and has been the subject of speeches from various noble Lords. Mr Clarke attempted to justify the Government's case according to the issues that he raised in the other place—none of them were constitutional issues; they related to the merits and demerits of this Bill. It was those arguments that I sought to address in opening the debate on my Motion.
	It is inevitable, I fear, that there will be repetition in the proceedings as we pursue them under the Parliament Act, because, frankly, the only tools at our disposal are to come back, come back and come back. It is scarcely surprising that no brand new points were raised in this debate.
	What I accept completely is that this House should not return this measure to the Commons without grave and considered thought. I attempted to say that earlier, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was kind enough to say that he still supported our arguments but, for constitutional reasons, would not support us in the Lobby. In my point that he picked up, I was saying that I believed that this was the exceptional case which did warrant taking the process to its conclusion. That process, as my noble friend Lord McNally said, was put there for a purpose.
	The Parliament Act was not legislated for on a whim or without immense care and consideration. There were two elections leading up to it—but what was arrived at gave this place powers that we are now exercising. Apart from the merits of the Bill itself, the only constitutional issue is whether we are right this evening to take this one whole step further—whether we are right to put it back to the Commons in the hope that, even now, it may think again or, at least, may compromise again.
	It is for each and every one of your Lordships to decide whether you think this is such an important matter. The noble Baroness talked about the respect with which this place will be held. Yes, there is a respect issue if we put the matter back to the Commons tonight. But there is another respect issue that is much broader and deeper—whether this Government should be allowed to pursue a measure on a compulsory basis, when they expressly and specifically said that it would be voluntary. I have to tell your Lordships that I have never had such a unanimous mailbag in my eight years here. That is not a long time. I have not had a single representation made by any organisation or individual in support of the Government's position in making this card compulsory for every citizen.
	However, a great many organisations and individuals have said to me, "Relieve us of a step that we believe will take this wonderful country of ours one pace further along a road down which we do not wish to proceed". That is a road towards a managerial state, an intrusive state and a surveillance state. We have had a great deal of legislation—I shall not bore noble Lords with it—which has added to those characteristics since this Government came to power.
	I end by appealing to your Lordships to share with me the sense that this is a Bill of the highest possible importance, the consequences of which will be long term and strategic and could go to the whole culture of our society. On that basis and that basis alone, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said Motion (A1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 218; Not-Contents, 183.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
	Bill returned to the Commons with a reason.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Constitution]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 7, after "as" insert "the Commission for"

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, having listened to a serious debate on what should happen to legislation, we now return to the detail of the wording of this—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords who wish to speak to one another could do so outside. We are unable to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall move a little closer to the microphone, which might help.
	Having dealt with high principles, the future of the House and a few other things in a debate that descended somewhat from my perspective, we now return to the detail of a Bill. In this group of amendments, we come to what we should be doing when we draft legislation. I am talking about the use of the English language and precision in the meaning of Bills.
	Part 1 of the Bill is entitled:
	"Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities".
	That could be read all sorts of ways. It is very imprecise and it could be positively misleading. It could perfectly properly be saying that Natural England is a function of the Commission for Rural Communities, but that is not what the Bill is about at all. One has to read the script following on from that title to find out what this is about. I therefore have a problem with the use of this brand-name title for Natural England.
	I know that the Minister will say that the predecessor organisations have chosen the name. They are perfectly entitled to have their say, but we are not dictating what they should call themselves but, in effect, we are writing their birth certificate. I have a birth certificate and, from time to time, I am called on to produce it to prove who I am, say, in a legal matter or sometimes in matters concerned with the Government. Nothing that appears on my birth certificate includes anything that I am normally called. That may seem to be a mystery, but it is no less a fact. I am called "Bill" by most of my close colleagues and that name does not appear on my birth certificate, and I am called "Lord Dixon-Smith" on more formal occasions and that does not appear on my birth certificate, but everyone knows perfectly well who I am.
	The title "Natural England" is not a natural title; Natural England is not a natural body. It is a wholly artificial creation; it is a government agency. For the life of me, I cannot see why we do not call it that. Of course, if subsequently it decides that it wants to be called by some abbreviated name, that is perfectly all right and it can do that. Here we are dealing with legislation which should be both precise and clear. That is precisely what Part 1 of the Bill is not. I am sorry that it takes a group of 90 amendments to rectify the situation. Once again, I give my thanks to the Public Bill Office for its help in deciding all the places the Bill has to be amended so that it should appear before us in proper English, in a manner that can be understood.
	When we discussed this matter in Committee, I put forward two different titles. This time I have put forward only one title. We should be consistent in what we are doing. I think Natural England should be called "Commission for Natural England". That would precisely describe what it is, an entirely human organisation, an entirely human creation, a government agency, or whatever one chooses to call it. "Commission for Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities" would be a consistent and understandable title for Part 1 of the Bill. In my view,
	"Natural England and the Commission for Rural Communities",
	is certainly very unclear and not an appropriate title to appear in legislation. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support my noble friend in his comments. I did so in Committee and do so again on Report.

Lord Carter: My Lords, we debated this matter in Committee. It would be a shame, when the Bill becomes an Act, if we sent this extremely important body into the world with a risible title. As I said in Committee—these are true stories—I mentioned this name to someone, who said that it sounded like a brand of yoghurt. The other day, I tried it on someone else, who said that it sounded like a health farm. The letter that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, read out said it all; if we have the Commission for Rural Communities, why on earth can we not have the commission for natural England?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we thought long about the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and by other noble Lords in Committee, about the name of the new body, but we still believe that the name Natural England and its strapline, "For people, places and nature", best sum up what this agency is to be about—conserving and enhancing for us all to enjoy, now and in the future, the national treasure that is England's natural environment.
	I remind the House that the name was proposed by the chairman of the three predecessor organisations—namely, the Countryside Agency, English Nature, and the Rural Development Service—following consultation with the staff of these organisations and their partners, and it has their support. That final point may be of some importance at a time of what will be substantial change for all those working in those organisations. It is the name they are now used to. There are no established rules about whether the names of non-departmental public bodies should include the word commission, agency, council or executive. Although there is a tendency for commissions to be mainly advisory bodies rather than executive bodies, even this simple distinction has not been applied consistently.
	We favour the simplicity of Natural England for two reasons. First, the many customers and organisations with which it deals will shorten its title to Natural England. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, conceded that. Whatever formal name it is given in statute, there is a good argument for aligning its legal title with the name by which it is known. Secondly, it will help people to position it in relation to two important sister organisations—English Heritage and Sport England. On that pragmatic basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, am I correct that the Minister said that the name was consulted on only within the department and the predecessor organisations, and that there was no outside consultation?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I said that the consultation was with the staff of the organisations and their partners—those organisations being the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Rural Development Service. I went on to say that it had the support of the staff as well as the chairman.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it seems that we have a difficulty. The Minister has said that there are two case precedents where people have used this sort of abbreviated title, but I still rather fancy that it is bad use of the English language and bad use of legislation, and I would prefer not to see it there. I am not sure that we can take the argument any further. There is only one way of resolving the matter; either I withdraw my amendment or I press it to a vote. If I withdraw it, I might feel inclined to bring it back at Third Reading after further discussions. I think perhaps that I will do that. The noble Baroness is looking concerned, so maybe I could not do that. If I cannot do that, perhaps the best thing to do would be to get it out of the way. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 215.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
	"( ) The functions of the Rural Development Service are divided between the Regional Development Agencies and Natural England."

Baroness Byford: My Lords, this amendment deals again with the Rural Development Service. In Committee, the Minister stated:
	"A large part of the Rural Development Service's functions, including the delivery of the agri-environment schemes . . . will be the responsibility of Natural England".—[Official Report, 24/1/06; col. 1101.]
	He also said that it was neither legally necessary nor appropriate to mention that fact in the Bill. At that time, we agreed to disagree with him.
	Our main reason for bringing this issue back on Report is because of the doubts surrounding the funding of Natural England. The money that goes out of the door in the form of agri-environment scheme funding is presumably not in question. It will be what it will be, and will be made available either via Defra or directly from the Treasury. We do not know. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to disabuse me if I have got it wrong.
	The money that enables Natural England to administer the schemes is, however, a rather different matter. If there is no reference to the transfer of responsibilities, will the necessary funding be made available at the same level as when the task was part of the RDS? Or will there be discussions about how many staff are needed and which computer hardware or software is required? Or will they all be transferred? How much will be devoted to the accountancy systems which are, presumably, fairly sophisticated?
	It seems fairly well accepted that the Government are trying to cut back on expenditure wherever possible. Part of that is simply reducing the funding that they allow for certain items—national parks, for example, as we discussed in Committee—and shifting responsibility for the delivery away from government to, for instance, local authorities. An example of the latter is the Chancellor's promise of free local transport for the over-60s, which has resulted in some councils having to consider raising council tax by up to 2 per cent. We should not like to see the delivery of agri-environment schemes compromised by lack of funds.
	I refer to the Minister's letter to me of 29 January, as it underlines my concern. It says:
	"Following the Curry Commission recommendations, the Government has made clear its desire to shift resources by modulating . . . funds from Pillar 1 subsidies to Pillar 2. The UK has been at the forefront of voluntary modulation for several years. It is true that modulation will have an effect on the amount of subsidy that farmers receive but our industry has remained amongst the most competitive and sustainable in the EU. The agreement reached also provides for the possibility to allow transfers of up to 20% of Pillar 1 funds to Pillar 2. There is a provision in the agreement which allows Member States to choose whether or not to co-finance transferred funds, adding incentive to transfer funds to rural development".
	However, the letter goes on clearly to state:
	"No decision has yet been taken about whether the Government will match-fund additional transfers from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2. It is clear that the decision reached will have an effect on the amount of funds needed to transfer to deliver rural development, including the agri-environment programme".
	That is why I have returned to the matter today. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches have concerns such as those expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Funding is an issue. We are aware that Defra is under extreme pressure in terms of funding. One of the reasons I was unable to support the previous amendments was my fear that a lot of expense in reprinting letter headings and so on would be entailed. Funding is an issue. This is an interesting question.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I apologise for missing the earlier stages of the Bill, which was a great disappointment to me. I declare an interest as the Minister who oversaw the Wildlife and Countryside Act and who was responsible for rural affairs in this country. I support the amendment because the Government seem to be obsessed with commissions, committees and agencies. The more that can be spelt out clearly, the easier it will be for those who live and work in the countryside. It is an absolute headache to discover which authority to go to, particularly where local councils are involved. The amendment gives us an opportunity to spell out exactly where certain sums of money will be placed. Any form of clarification in this world that has now become so complex is an advantage to those who try to earn a living in the countryside, which I assure noble Lords is a jolly difficult undertaking at the moment. I support the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this amendment seeks to clarify the position of the Rural Development Service. It is not a separate legal entity from Defra. It is neither legally necessary nor appropriate to mention that in the Bill. It is, however, appropriate to provide that clarification in the Explanatory Notes and I have already given assurances that we will seek to do so.
	The noble Baroness was right that the RDAs will take responsibility for socio-economic funding, as we made clear in the Rural Strategy 2004, though this will be effected by means of the RDAs' own powers and changes to secondary legislation, which do not need to be mentioned in the Bill. So the EU rural development regulation schemes that are run by the RDS, such as vocational training, processing and marketing grants and rural enterprise grants, will in future be administered by the RDAs.
	The large part of the RDS functions, including the delivery of agri-environment schemes, will be the responsibility of Natural England, as the noble Baroness recognised. Chapter 1 of Part 8, which relates to powers to enter into delegation agreements, provides a mechanism to delegate RDS functions. We expect to use those powers for some of the RDS functions. Others will be managed by changes to secondary legislation or using Natural England's own powers conferred by the Bill, such as the power to enter into management agreements that is established by Clause 7.
	It is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Monro, back in his place. We missed him at earlier stages of the Bill. I accept fully his point about the difficulties facing those who seek to earn a living in agriculture and the countryside. It is our intention in this Bill to make the system easier for people to understand. With regard to agri-environment, it is difficult to say anything more about funding. The agri-environment budgets for 2007 are still being discussed with the EU. It is much too soon to make decisions on items such as match funding while that is going on.
	For the constituent bodies of Natural England, the Government intend that the outcome sought and the level of programme funding for 2005-06 to 2007-08 will be set out in their approved corporate plans. This year's programme funding for those constituent bodies will be £246 million. Future budgets will be set by the Secretary of State as part of corporate planning rounds.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I think she was saying that the budget for the Countryside Agency in the year ahead would be £246 million. Can she remind us what the budget for that agency was in the present year, which is nearly past?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that inspiration might come to me in answering that question. It is possible that I shall get help; I do seek to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, if possible.
	Returning to the future, Natural England's budget will be set by the Secretary of State while its future services, programmes and priorities will be a matter for its board, when established, in consultation with Ministers as part of the corporate planning round. I am delighted to be able to tell the noble Lord now that £65 million is currently the approximate Countryside Agency budget. I have no absolutely detailed figures, but it is in that region. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for her response, I believe she would accept that I am still quite concerned for the long term. In her reply, she mentioned that some responsibility would go down to the RDAs and that some things would be done through secondary legislation. Can she share with the House what sort of things would come in secondary legislation? If not, I should be grateful if she could come back to me on that between now and Third Reading.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I too should like to welcome my noble friend Lord Monro back to the House. We have missed him and I am delighted that he is here to take part today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 [Natural England]:
	[Amendments Nos. 7 to 45 not moved.]
	Clause 2 [General purpose]:
	[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) action in the countryside to assist the containment of global warming,"

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Bill is clear that the purposes of Natural England are all to do with conservation, protection and preservation. That is absolutely fine, so far as it goes. It means that Natural England, with the Bill as presently drafted, is concerned with the past. My amendment seeks to make part of its functions
	"to assist the containment of global warming".
	Global warming is the present; its more pernicious effects are the future. So, in a sense this little amendment—so simple and plain—brings the past and future together for once. It is here and now that they meet. If we consider global warming, the news is consistently bad. We have just heard that global atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased to its highest level ever. Well, we knew that it was going up, so every year will be the highest; more disconcerting is that it is now also rising at its most rapid annual rate ever.
	The polar ice-caps are breaking up and melting; they are not reforming in winter as they used to. In countries like Switzerland, the glaciers are retreating. At the weekend, I asked someone who lives in Switzerland how the glaciers were being affected. He said that a track that he used to go up 25 years ago to visit a bar that used to be on the edge of the ice is now 40 feet above it. The track itself is dangerous as a result. If you miss your footing there is a 40-foot fall. We have recently had reports of increasing acidification in the oceans due to carbon dioxide absorption. That will damage the reproduction of shellfish, plankton and corals; more importantly, if they are unable to make their shells—which lock up carbon in the form of calcium carbonate—then we restrict the sea's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. As I have said, the problem of global warming is consistently worsening.
	Many things can be done. When I last introduced this amendment, I suggested the word "development" to assist the containment of global warming in the countryside. That did not find favour, so this time I have used the word "action", which describes nothing in particular yet could be vital in one particular respect. An interesting research paper was published in Science in 2004, entitled Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. One of the writers' options was forest management; they suggested the planting of large areas of forests in temperate areas. Another was agricultural soils management. Those are both existing technologies; as things which occur in the countryside, they are actions which Natural England could perfectly well participate in and promote.
	I make no apology for bringing forward this amendment. It is important that we get global warming under control for, if we do not, we have no certainty of being able to preserve anything in our present countryside. Two possibilities are being talked about. One is that the Gulf Stream—which produces the equivalent energy around our islands of 30,000 power stations providing heat for us—will cease to flow. If it does, ours becomes more akin to a Nordic climate. The alternative is that warming continues without that effect; if that happens, then we go to a more Mediterranean kind of climate. In both eventualities the continuation of the countryside, as we know it, will not be happening. Natural England will then have an impossible task.
	So, I make no apology for bringing back the amendment. As I said initially, the past and future have to meet somewhere. They are meeting here and now. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on this amendment. The Bill is called the natural environment Bill. We know that global warming is the biggest threat not only to our natural environment but to our very future. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that the noble Lord so eloquently put as to why that needs to be addressed. I believe that Natural England as much, and probably more, than most agencies, needs to be in the forefront of addressing these issues, particularly with regard to adaptation.
	My one small regret might be that we have not saved our voting energies. I have no idea whether the noble Lord will test the opinion of the House, but if we were to vote, we should have saved our energies for this amendment rather than the one on names. The issue that he raises is extremely important and I hope that the Government look kindly on including something in the Bill with reference to this important issue.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, in principle at any rate. He has given us a vivid description of the consequences of not coming to terms with the difficulties of global warming. I have no doubts on that matter at all. I have the honour sitting on Sub-Committee D under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. In a report that we produced on the EU Commission's trading scheme, we looked very carefully at the matter, and it became abundantly clear to us as the report proceeded that the problems of global warming are enormous. As my noble friend rightly said, the latest figures are frightening.
	We all have a huge responsibility to deal with this issue. Whether the amendment gives a remit too far to Natural England within this Bill is a moot point—and, looking at the Minister, I am pretty convinced that that is what he is going to say. He may well have a point. But in principle I entirely support what my noble friend has said—and I think that the Minister would have to come forward with a very convincing argument not to support the amendment. But I shall listen carefully to what he has to say.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support my noble friend in his desire to have a wake-up call on the needs of not only conserving and preserving the countryside, but also looking at the effect that climate change will have on that very countryside.
	I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 49 to 52, which are in the group. Amendment No. 49 raises an issue again, but with a subtle difference. We believe that this amendment would improve greatly Natural England's natural purpose clause. The amendment would replace "conserve" with "protect". The difference between the two words is crucial; the word "protect" defines an active stance and, in the opinion of the CPRE standing council, it makes the legal difference by placing a duty on Natural England actively to protect the landscape. In contrast, the word "conserve" defines a more passive stance, whereby the status quo is kept intact without a really active engagement.
	In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, stated that, although the word "protect" is used in reference to biodiversity, it would not be applicable to landscape. She went on to say that using the word "protecting" in relation to biodiversity would prevent any,
	"claims that Natural England should support activities that may enhance biodiversity adversely".—[Official Report, 30/1/06; col. 118.]
	She said that she had no intention of weakening that position. But she stated, too, that biodiversity and landscape were on an equal playing field and that one was not more important than the other. So it is not clear to me why they cannot be treated with the same terminology.
	Further to this, in the Government's documents, the necessity is pointed out of using the word "protect". The Planning Policy Statement 7, published in 2004, in one of its key aims states:
	"The Government's objectives for rural areas are to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the promotion of the continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all, with the highest level of protection for our most valued landscapes and environmental resources".
	We believe that our amendment would ensure the future sustainability of the landscape but, in the light of that statement, it seems a sensible addition to the Bill that would join up the Government's aims in protecting the landscape across the board.
	Referring again to the PPS7, and enlarging on it, as it is the Government's official planning policy, under their key principles on page 7, under 1(iv), they say that,
	"the Government's overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all".
	It therefore seems curious to us, and to the CPRE, that reference in the planning policy for local authorities should be stronger than that in Natural England's statutory duty, which I have to say I still find puzzling.
	Our next two amendments seek to leave out "in other ways" in one case and, in the other, to leave out,
	"contributing in other ways to",
	and to insert,
	"supporting rural communities in furtherance of".
	Paragraphs (a) and (d) of subsection (2) contain fairly robust aims. I am sure that we would agree exactly what, for example,
	"conserving and enhancing the landscape",
	involves. "Protecting biodiversity" or "encouraging open-air recreation" are concepts that we can all comprehend, and some of your Lordships have great skills to ensure that those sorts of plans are implemented.
	After that, "contributing in other ways" seems rather vague and wishy-washy and, I would have thought, difficult to justify. Our suggestion for improvement is twofold: either simply to leave out "in other ways" or to reiterate Natural England's affinity with the countryside by giving it a duty to support the work of rural communities in improving their social and economic well-being. I am sure that I am not the only one in this House who receives a constant and unrelenting stream of correspondence from people and organisations who consider that I can be of assistance in their efforts to improve social justice and the workings of the DWP, and the performance of a whole range of service providers, including the protection of our small post offices. It is quite clear that all is not well in our villages, small towns and in our countryside. Nor is it at all well, by any means, for there to be the continuing and growing problems of fly-tipping, litter and the flouting of planning laws, which obviously brings additional difficulties.
	We had a long debate on the substance of Amendment No. 52 in Committee. I said then, and I shall say again, that this is perhaps one of the most important amendments—and it is a matter of balance. I was grateful for the wide range of support that I received from noble Lords when we dealt with the matter in Committee. Some noble Lords suggested that our amendment might be more effective if it had been slightly redrafted. Having gone through the record for those days, I have come back with a slightly different wording, which I hope will encourage noble Lords' continued support and perhaps gain support from others.
	The amendment is quite clear now. It is only in the event of significant conflict that Natural England would have to prioritise its objectives relating to conservation and the environment. The Minister said in Committee:
	"Instances of irreconcilable conflict between access and conservation are rare in practice".—[Official Report, 1/2/06; col. 258.]
	That is the basis of introducing a conflict resolution provision—that it will be used only in those rare instances when Natural England and those other organisations are in a checkmate situation. The amendment is emphatically not about giving an environment conservation priority on a day-to-day basis—and I stress that—or in giving conservation automatic precedence or a greater funding priority. I am only too well aware that sustainable development is dependent not only on conserving the environment but on the social and economic factors as well.
	Natural England will be one among many. It is far from the only organisation that will be involved in the process of the decision-making or in resolving conflicts of interest. I am sure that in 99.9 per cent of instances that irreconcilable conflict would associate only with proposals by third parties rather than within Natural England itself. Natural England might be involved as a consultee or a stakeholder in the case of development of a policy or management proposal. The Minister made the point in Committee that no other organisation with statutory duty for conservation had a conflict resolution clause. I suggest that no other organisation has been given such a broad remit.
	The Minister mentioned the Environment Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Agency. When established, however, Natural England will be the sole statutory body for England charged with defending and enhancing the natural environment. It is concerned with all the issues that those agencies cover, and much more. It is precisely because of the contradictory nature of the definition that we believe this amendment is needed.
	The EFRA Select Committee suggested that the conflict resolution and policy implementation would be the job of government offices for the regions, yet at present I understand that those offices do not have the capacity to take on this role. The Minister might clarify that for me. In the absence of that support, Natural England, as the Minister has stated, will be the major champion of the environment, and should have the teeth to implement it. Along those lines, the Minister also gave an indication in Committee that he would undertake to put conflict resolution on the agenda in discussions with the Natural England confederation about statutory guidance. For the interest of other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, Jim Knight, who saw me on Monday this week, along with my honourable friend Jim Paice. He indicated that great thought had been given to this situation.
	I know the Minister will come back on this, but for the sake of the House I will repeat what was said in the letter sent to me on 13 March on conflict resolution:
	"In Committee debate on Natural England's purpose, (the Minister) promised to consider the inclusion of principles for dealing with conflict resolution in Statutory Guidance. We have done this"—
	they have given it consideration—
	"and concluded that it would meet several of the concerns expressed by noble Lords, while preserving the flexibility and independence of Natural England's Board which we consider important".
	The Minister should be able to respond to that at this stage.
	The Minister, Jim Knight, went on to say:
	"I would stress that the Bill requires draft statutory guidance to be consulted on very widely before being finalised",
	but he wanted to raise this issue with me. Subsequently the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has spoken to me, and I understand that circumstances have slightly altered. In fairness to him, and also to Jim Knight, I should make the House aware that I was made aware, at 3 o'clock today, that perhaps there is a change of heart. However, I hope that setting out why we think our amendment is important reflects the position we find ourselves in at this moment. I end up by having supported my noble friend in his amendment, and spoken to the other amendments standing in my name in this group.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I stand to support Amendment No. 52. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the letter from Mr Jim Knight which was also copied to a number of us with an interest in this issue. The letter, dated 13 March, also kindly gave us a draft text of guidance that could have dealt with the issue of conflict resolution, and indeed was very much in line with the position I proposed in Committee, which I hoped the Minister was taking away. I was therefore pleased to see a copy of the letter, though I was a bit downcast when I learnt, round about 5.35 tonight, that the letter had been passed over and was no longer the Government's intention. I know a week is meant to be a long time in politics, but it appears that two days is now a pretty long time. I am confused about what the Government's position on conflict resolution will be. I understand that we are not to expect that guidance will be forthcoming on this issue and so I want to talk to the substantive issue of the amendment, which would not have been necessary if guidance had been promised.
	I will use the briefing that many of your Lordships will have received from the Country Land and Business Association in relation to this amendment. The association gave an example where it thought it would be inappropriate for there to be guidance or anything on the face of the Bill saying that conservation and landscape should take precedence in extreme circumstances where there is no means of reconciling conflicts and they are of a serious nature. It took the strange example of a person running a tourist attraction in an SSSI who wanted to develop visitor facilities in the midst of the site, the construction of which would be detrimental to the provisions of the SSSI. The association went on to say that if the amendment were adopted, Natural England would have no possibility of allowing that development to go ahead. It said that there might be perfectly good grounds for allowing it to go ahead and that,
	"A small scale development"—
	in the SSSI—
	"creating a couple of jobs and bringing in a bit of money for the landowner which could be reinvested in the area, may well do more for achieving the general purpose than a refusal".
	I remind your Lordships that SSSIs are a very small proportion of the land surface of this country. They are the jewels in the crown of nature conservation, the most priceless and irreplaceable parts of our natural heritage. This briefing was equivalent to saying that you might carve a bit out of a Vermeer or a Picasso so a few local artists would have some canvas to paint on to keep them from going to the wall. That is not quite what we are looking for as the steer for what the Minister at another time called the "trenchant champion" of the natural environment, but it is a good example of the sort of pressure Natural England will undoubtedly face on a daily basis, and shows why the Minister needs at least to give it guidance, if not to put a conflict resolution clause on the face of the Bill. I know he will say that he has already said, I think on Second Reading, that protected sites will of course take priority, but it is clear that there will continue to be debate about what takes priority when economic development and conservation and landscape are in conflict with each other.
	I would have been extremely happy if the Minister had underpinned his wish that Natural England be a trenchant champion of the natural environment by giving it the sort of guidance that it was indicated to us on Monday would be given. Now that it will not be given, there is a real need for Amendment No. 52, and I hope the noble Baroness will divide the House on this.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I too rise to talk about Amendment No. 52, and I am afraid I would like to oppose it. When we discussed this issue in Committee, I was totally agnostic on the subject. I was duly persuaded by the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others who supported her. I was drifting along, waiting to be persuaded back into my state of agnosticism by the Minister's reply. However, it was the speech of my friend and fellow Cross-Bencher, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that suddenly tipped the balance for me. She mentioned that if a conflict clause had existed for the relevant body, it would have been impossible for the funicular railway to have been built up the Cairngorms.
	That set me thinking. I love mountains, and I think there is nothing more uplifting than to stand at the top of a mountain to look down at the valleys or glens below. If I had to choose one mountain where the old, the infirm, the disabled and the very young should be able to have that uplifting experience, I would choose Cairngorm. In my view, Cairngorm Mountain is already environmentally prejudiced by the fact that it has skiers and mountaineers all over it in winter and—in the case of mountaineers—for most of the summer. It already has ski lifts and its slopes have been cosmetically altered, shall we say, for skiers. It already has road infrastructure; it already has a thumping great big car park halfway up the mountain; and it already has the Sheiling restaurant to give meals and shelter from rough weather to skiers, both winter and summer. Furthermore, there are thousands of jobs around Aviemore that depend on this particular very longstanding tourist attraction being open for as many days as possible in a year. When I say longstanding, I mean that I first went skiing there 48 years ago. I admit that the Cairngorm Mountain is indeed slightly environmentally worse off on account of the funicular. In the context of the hundreds of Munros in England and Scotland, however, it would seem fair to let this already slightly, or quite, environmentally damaged mountain suffer the fate of being chosen to allow as many people as possible to stand on the viewing platform and look down the slopes below.
	Now, if my noble friend Lady Young and I were on the committee deciding whether to permit this funicular, I am sure we would have a very good discussion. I am equally sure that, with her diplomatic prowess and powers of persuasion, I would probably get handbagged and lose the debate. The point is that I do not believe it is any business of Parliament to predetermine that decision for us. There could be many hypothetical examples where there might be minor environmental downsides on a local scale which, with a conflict clause, could be used to achieve some fairly perverse decisions.
	I strongly support the independence of Natural England and the CRC. But I believe that both we and government have to be bold and allow them to make their own decisions without trying to second-guess them in advance. That is why I do not believe that this conflict clause—even expressed in its new, moderated terms—is a very good idea.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, it is quite often the case that Cross-Benchers disagree with each other. I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend Lord Cameron on the Cairngorms, but he makes a point. I was quite happy with the noble Baroness's amendment when I saw it on the Marshalled List at the beginning of the week. It seemed to me that she had got it about right and that she had got the point about irreconcilability. Irreconcilability is the point. If you have something and you want something else, these things may be mutually incompatible. There is a question about the Cairngorms that one might argue on that front. But I thought that the noble Baroness had got it about right, including the magic word "irreconcilable". Then, this morning, I got a copy of the letter from Jim Knight to the noble Baroness and I thought there was something to be said for a bit of flexibility in what is a difficult issue. So I was most interested in what the Minister was going to say. Now I hear from others, who obviously know more than I do about what is going on, that the letter seems to have been withdrawn. Whether the noble Baroness will press her amendment to a Division tonight rather depends on what the Minister will say. It may make sense to press it not tonight but at Third Reading. It is not easy when you receive a letter in the morning and then find, by half past six in the afternoon, that it has apparently been withdrawn or that something else has happened.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I could make a general point. When we have a group of amendments, Members are expected to speak only once prior to the Minister speaking. I know that at least two noble Lords have got caught in this trap, having spoken earlier to this group of amendments. Perhaps we could be flexible in this group and rather strict beyond this group.

Earl Peel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, having spoken to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, perhaps I could now speak to Amendments Nos. 50 and 52—in the name of my noble friend Lady Byford in the case of Amendment No. 50, and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in the case of Amendment No. 52.
	Before doing so—it was an error on my part—I should have declared an interest when I last spoke. I own land in the north of England. Briefly, I have great sympathy for Amendment No. 50 and would support it. However, in exactly the same way that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has just expressed it, I have difficulty with Amendment No. 52. This new body, Natural England, will have to decide how best to carry out its responsibilities under the general purposes clause of the Bill. Clearly, Natural England's brief is principally one of promoting nature conservation. I believe that that is absolutely right and proper. I think it is very important that, notwithstanding Amendment. No. 50, Clause 2(2)(e) includes the opportunity for Natural England to contribute in other ways,
	"to social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment".
	That will require a delicate balance. Indeed, I supported an amendment in Committee in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, which would have substituted Clause 2(2)(e) with a somewhat stronger socio-economic remit. We felt that there is a danger that some rural economic activities could be unnecessarily compromised by the general purposes clause.
	I think I am right in saying that my noble friend Lady Byford supported this amendment. That being the case, it is perhaps a little surprising that she has moved this conflict resolution amendment which would virtually destroy any degree of latitude or compromise in Natural England's operations. I fully understand and appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but sustainable development is not always about conservation of the natural environment in isolation. Economic and social issues are often intertwined and cannot be regarded in isolation.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made reference to the example of the Country Land and Business Association. I think that her analogy, on that occasion, was probably reasonably accurate. If, for example, you had a large upland SSSI on which a farmer or a land manager wanted to insert a track that might enhance the actual management of that area with benefits to the nature conservation value of the site, then, under my noble friend's amendment, I do not think that Natural England would have any option but to say no. So this choice, this delicate balance, which is so vital to the success of Natural England, cannot be compromised. I appreciate that my noble friend's amendment will deal only with what she described as "significant cases", but we have all seen it in practice. At a local level, small decisions can suddenly become increasingly significant. So I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment. I have had the pleasure of working with her very closely on rural matters for many years and I do not think I have ever had a real disagreement with her. However, on this occasion, I am bound to say that if she were to press her amendment, I would have no option but to vote against it.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I also speak against Amendment No. 52. Following the line of thought of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, Natural England must be allowed to build its own reputation. It must be allowed to look at every instance on its own merits and decide accordingly. Under the Bill, Natural England is obligated to decide how best to achieve its general purpose, taking into account all the issues. On many occasions, it will naturally take the view that nature conservation is the most appropriate way forward. There is no reason why that should always be the case. That is why it is important that no resolution is put forward that mandates how it should decide each case. I have great difficulty also trying to understand how it will be decided what is irreconcilable on any occasion.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for digging me out of the hole I had got into by speaking only to the first amendment.
	My name is attached to Amendment No. 50 because, especially for the most deeply rural communities, there will be many occasions on which that power and duty of Natural England's needs to be strengthened. Because of their remoteness, they will have a lot more to do with Natural England; we have frequently rehearsed the issues of sparsity, and I will not do so now. The sort of wording in Amendment No. 50 is important for the agency.
	I move on to Amendment No. 52. I have to admit that I have tussled hard with the issue, and listened carefully in Committee to the arguments. I have a lot of sympathy with the "jewels in our crown" argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. However, I arrive at the difficulty that some areas have an awful lot of jewels—they tend to be concentrated into some areas. That is fantastic for those areas, but it means that the chances for any social and economic development will be massively reduced. There is no perfect answer to that. It is virtually a free-vote issue, if it comes to a vote. It is not an issue on which one can align oneself except by one's own best judgment; I certainly do not see it as party political. On it, we should leave Natural England the freedom to assess every case on its merits. I am sure that every difficult case will be difficult to assess, and the quality of Natural England's board will very much be reflected by its ability to tussle with such difficult issues. I do not believe that we can legislate on the matter, much as we might like to safeguard the environmental future of our countryside and environment. Therefore, I will not be able to support Amendment No. 52.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I also oppose Amendment No. 52. I was not present in Committee when we debated a similar amendment, but I made my feelings clear at an earlier stage in Committee when I said that I opposed any effort to write the Sandford principle into the Bill. It is most important that we retain a balance between the different interests, which conflict from time to time. We must also remember that the remit of Natural England covers urban areas as well as the countryside; that would make the amendment more difficult to work with. Things have been slanted slightly in favour of environmental issues as a result of the habitats directive already; that will have to be taken into account by Natural England.
	I have been intrigued to see that a number of noble Lords who have spoken seem to have changed their mind since Committee. I do not know whether that is because of what the Minister said on that occasion, but I have not changed my mind—I still very much oppose Amendment No. 52. My noble friend Lord Erroll, who was here a moment ago, got called away to host a reception but would also have spoken against Amendment No. 52.

Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps surprisingly, I would like to give a word of encouragement to the noble Baroness for her amendment. I get worried when I hear people beginning to talk about the need to retain a balance. That sounds to me like the beginning of the end. Retaining a balance really means, "Come on, let's be reasonable. There are all these economic and other considerations, and we've got to give them serious attention". My experience suggests that there is never a shortage of advocacy for the immediate material economic arguments. If somebody has an economic, profit-making enterprise at hand, they will be forceful and use every device at their disposal to make sure that their case is heard. Therefore, anything that can be done to underline that the intention of the Bill is to keep within our territory this rare qualitative dimension to our life—it is so essential for the psychological and physical well-being of our people—should be there in specific language.
	However, I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to vote on the amendment tonight. The wording of the Bill is pretty explicit. The Minister seems to be demonstrating that the Government want to give very clear guidance to Natural England about the responsibilities in the future, so I shall listen with great interest to what he says.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I have not had the opportunity to speak very much on the Bill, for reasons that are probably well known, but I would like to address Amendments Nos. 48, 50 and 52—briefly, as a lot has been said already about them.
	Amendment No. 52 is about resolving "irreconcilable conflict" and the "greater weight" being,
	"given to those relating to the conservation of the natural environment".
	As someone who has lived most of my life in rural areas—albeit remote rural areas—I think that, before one gives the amendment approval, one needs to think about the people and the sustainability of the communities. Young people there in particular may not have the opportunity of employment. I have seen instances where initiatives have been blighted and all hope for school-leavers in some communities has gone with the wind. I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I happened to be working in Scotland at the time of the initiatives in the Cairngorms. They were very much a regeneration of that area, because of a great amount of people leaving it. The initiatives were a flagship commitment of the authorities in Scotland at that time.
	We have an interesting situation at the moment with some of the older initiatives. For example, there was an appalling café on top of Snowden. I do not know whether I am allowed to mention it, but the Prince of Wales criticised it. He has not called it a carbuncle, but we are having to build a new café 100 years after the old one was built. No doubt the new one will not really be appropriate, but it should be a heck of a lot better.
	I shall make a couple of points on the other amendments. I strongly support Amendment No. 48, which is on,
	"action in the countryside to assist the containment of global warming".
	That is terribly important. There are a lot of aspects that we do not have time to go into, but I shall speak about one. We will have to look in the future for drought-resistant varieties of crops. We can no longer use North Sea gas to produce nitrogen to produce crops. We will have to go into nitrogen-creating crops such as new varieties of clover, which will actually sustain drought problems and increase production in, and the viability and sustainability of, the countryside. We are cutting back on research and development at present. Is that wise? Some of our research stations are going to lose many of the staff working on such things at the moment. There needs to be a great deal of thought on that.
	Amendment No. 50 is very important in supporting rural communities in furtherance of social and development objectives. We have to achieve in the countryside the viability and sustainability of our communities as well as of our environment. This series of amendments is extremely important. We can see that there is variable reaction to some of them— particularly Amendment No. 52—but I would have thought that most noble Lords could subscribe to Amendments Nos. 48 and 50.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we have had another excellent debate around the topic of Natural England's purposes. I take the view that each of these amendments is quite separate from another, dealing with different issues but on the common topic of Natural England's purpose. I am quite sure that they are not consequential on each other in any way.
	Before I start addressing the matters that have been spoken about so well—it has been an example of the House of Lords at its best—we are all glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, back in his place. We missed him very much in Committee, although I have a feeling that he will make up for that during the rest of our hearings today and next week.
	So that noble Lords know our view, I say straight away that, although we understand and sympathise with many of the points made today, we do not agree that they should be dealt with in the Bill—with one possible exception, which I will come to in due course.
	As I said in Committee, Natural England's purpose has been carefully drafted to be broad and enabling and to give Natural England the flexibility and independence to champion the natural environment. At the same time, Natural England is given the responsibility to find ways of doing such things so that wherever possible its environmental work also contributes to social and economic goals and, therefore, to sustainable development.
	Having said that, I have heard some powerful arguments since Committee, not least in today's debate, and the House may be pleased to hear that I am not going to be dogmatic in considering this clause. Let us look at the amendments in turn.
	The effects of Amendment No. 48, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would be to make it clear that taking action in the countryside to assist in containing global warming was part of Natural England's general purpose. No one could be more forthright or eloquent on the subject of global warming than the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and for that the House owes him a debt.
	That climate change is a vital issue is a given. Government expect Natural England, in common with all other public bodies, to play an active role in combating those effects. The issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, put it, is whether this would be a remit too far for Natural England.
	However, climate change has a wide-ranging agenda and one in which, frankly, Natural England would not be the lead player. As a key element of the broader sustainable development agenda, climate change would be an important part of the context in which Natural England operates. There is no doubt that relevant action to mitigate climate change could fall within Natural England's general purpose, but it will approach it from the point of view of an organisation whose functions, powers and expertise lie in environmental management. The items listed in Clause 2, at subsections (2)(a) to (e), are a selection of the things contained within Natural England's general purpose. The list could be made very much longer, but that would not necessarily increase its value as a means of clarifying the role of Natural England. Our view is that this amendment falls into that category.
	Amendment No. 49 is based upon the premise that the change of wording makes it stronger. I am afraid that I cannot accept that. Indeed, I believe that within the current wording Natural England could do all that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggests.
	Since the 1940s, "conserve" has been applied to landscape and natural beauty, including wildlife. References in existing landscape legislation to "conserve" and "enhance" have not curtailed the ability of the Countryside Agency to take action to preserve and/or protect landscapes should that be required. A further point is that neither the agency nor its predecessor, the Countryside Commission, have indicated at any time that they have been restricted by the use of "conserve".
	Amendment No. 50 would amend Clause 2(e) to make "rural communities" the focus of Natural England's efforts to promote,
	"social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment".
	I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that the Government are a passionate supporter of rural communities—the noble Baroness certainly is. That is why the Government are setting up the Commission for Rural Communities.
	However, Natural England's interests are not confined to communities in rural areas. I believe that the rationale here, if not the wording, is something that we can look at further—to give added impetus to Natural England in its work with and for local communities, both rural and urban. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I am happy to take it away and, if I can find acceptable wording—discussing it with her before—then bring back a government amendment on Third Reading.
	I was grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation of Amendment No. 51. We were not sure of the rationale for the amendment, unless it was to make clear that Natural England could also promote social and economic well-being through the carrying out of the other strands of its general purpose. While Natural England can and will, in some cases, promote social and economic well-being through its other activities, we do not believe that the current form of wording—which would hence be less restrictive—would rule out a more innovative approach, if that were appropriate.
	Amendment No. 52 is, as the noble Baroness said in her speech, very important. We covered conflict resolution in depth in Committee and I do not want to reiterate all the arguments. However, I must begin with an apology—which I do. As promised in Committee, we have considered whether it would be appropriate to guide Natural England on how to deal with conflicts between different aspects of its purpose in the statutory guidance which Clause 15 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to give. In order to assist our discussions tonight, my honourable friend Jim Knight circulated on Monday an example of the way in which this might be done. He said at the end of his letter that it was as an example of how conflict resolution might be covered, not as a draft for approval.
	To give noble Lords time to consider this, it was sent out, frankly, before we had completed our consideration of its merits. I have to tell the House that the conclusion of that consideration is that it would not be appropriate to cover conflict resolution in the statutory guidance. So, the note noble Lords received is no longer relevant to what I am about to say. I apologise for the inconvenience.
	Let me start with the core of our response: Natural England will be—the word has been used before, and I say it again unashamedly—a trenchant champion of the natural environment. No one reading the purpose in Clause 2 can be in any doubt, I would argue, that Natural England is an environmental organisation. It is about managing and enhancing places and nature and about encouraging people to enjoy and benefit from them. It will make decisions in the context of sustainable development. Through its environmental work, Natural England will contribute to sustainable development by actively seeking economic and social benefits for present and future generations. Sustainable development cannot be delivered by social, economic or environmental work on its own.
	We believe that Clause 2 and the Explanatory Notes—which I have just summarised—provide the right framework for the board of Natural England to decide how to address the diverse range of complex issues which will come to it for decision. As has been said in this debate, it will build its own reputation and it must be allowed to do that. It will be one of the Government's key advisers on managing the natural environment. We maintain the view that it would not be right to constrain the judgment of the board on the face of the Bill in the way proposed in Amendment No. 52; nor should it be exposed to the threat of judicial review on this ground for every decision that it takes.
	I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has significantly adjusted the amendment she brought forward in Committee to refer to "significant", "irreconcilable" conflicts. I promised to go away and give thought to whether conflict resolution in those very rare situations could be dealt with appropriately in the statutory guidance which the Secretary of State can give to Natural England under Clause 15. Our conclusion, after considerable thought, was that it would not.
	We were looking for a form of words to include in statutory guidance that would, first, not unduly limit Natural England's independence; or, secondly, not encourage it to pay any less heed to the social and economic implications of its activities and thus not contribute as fully as it could to sustainable development; or, thirdly, put it at undue risk of judicial review. We were not able to do that to our satisfaction. I recognise that this is a matter of judgment, but that is our firm conclusion.
	Returning to our overall aim, we are trying to strike the right balance—for once, I did not completely agree with what my noble friend Lord Judd said about balance—and it is the right thing to aim for. Of course he is right to say that those who put forward economic arguments for change in the countryside do so with great passion, but if I have learnt one thing in my few months in this job, it is that those who put forward an environmental argument do so with equal, if not sometimes greater, passion. So it is a question of striking the right balance between Natural England's independence to make its own judgments as an expert on the natural environment—something many noble Lords have stressed when discussing other provisions in the Bill—and establishing a clear framework within which it will operate, which is important to its many customers and stakeholders, as well as to Ministers and Parliament to whom it is ultimately accountable.
	The combination of Clause 2, as drafted, and the Explanatory Notes to which I referred, does the job. On the basis of those arguments, and those that have been put forward during an excellent debate, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and other noble Lords not to move theirs.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full response. I am well aware that we are at Report stage, but I wish to clarify matters with him, otherwise I might not be able to speak again when my amendments are reached—they will either be moved or not moved.
	I hope that the Minister will understand—and I accept his apology because these past few hours have been a nightmare—if under those circumstances I need to reconsider the matter. I should make that clear, because if I do not say that to other noble Lords, they will not be aware of it, and when the time comes, the amendments will either be moved or not moved. I also thank the Minister for agreeing to reconsider Amendment No. 50 and bring back an amendment that, I hope, will deal with local communities. I am more than happy with that and am grateful to him. I am only too aware that the Bill deals with both urban and rural communities, and that is part of the dilemma that we face. Perhaps some of us who live in very rural areas get worried that the rurality will be swamped in the whole.
	Just to be technically correct, I hope I have made it clear that while I accept the Minister's explanation, I will need to seek advice, because my colleagues in another place may return to the matter—but I cannot say that at this stage.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister said in his response said that this was a group of five separate amendments. Indeed, to a certain extent we have had five separate debates wrapped up within this single debate. That makes the position difficult, because under the conventions of the House what happens to the first amendment commits the rest.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should make it clear that when amendments in a group are so disparate, and when noble Lords have spoken both for and against different amendments within the group, it would not be wise to apply the outcome of the first amendment to all the amendments. We would end up with Members unable to vote—having voted in favour of the first amendment, they may wish to vote against on the second, for example.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness who has taken the words out of my mouth—I was going to suggest that for the convenience of the House we should treat this group in that way. That happens to make my task more simple, but I am somewhat hesitant in any event.
	The Minister was right in saying that global warming is part of the context in which Natural England will work. However, there must be a point at which it is appropriate to start to force this subject into legislation and into the actions of all government departments. In his reply to me, the Minister gave us some hope. I am not sure that he clarified the matter sufficiently, but equally I am not sure that I am so dissatisfied with what he has said that I wish to press the amendment to a Division, particularly at this stage of the evening.
	However, it is only fair to say that it is extremely likely that I will bring back the amendment yet again at Third Reading, because, whether we like it or not, this subject will drive everything. It will drive the country's economic programme, its energy policies, possibly its budgetary balance and its social programmes in the widest sense, until we get things under control. It is not just a question of this country doing that, it is the major international issue.
	For this evening, the question is the point at which this subject intrudes, and has inevitably to be put, into the consideration of all public bodies. I am close to concluding that we have to do that, but I am prepared to defer the issue until Third Reading, only so that I can look at the Minister's precise words and consider their meaning. I am not sure that an implicit understanding is sufficient any longer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 49 to 52 not moved.]
	Clause 3 [Review and research]:
	[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
	"( ) In exercising its functions under subsection (3), Natural England must have due regard to the purposes of the National Environment Research Council."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the amendment takes us back to research into biodiversity—and other issues—which I raised in Committee. When we debated it, the Minister said that the National Environment Research Council's decisions on the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology were out for consultation until the middle of February and that,
	"therefore no decisions have been made".—[Official Report, 8/2/06; col. 764.]
	Now that they have been made—and I am sure that noble Lords will have received the very helpful letter of 13 March from Professor Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council—can the Minister say whether the Government are satisfied with the outcome? I do not think he will be surprised to learn that I still have severe reservations. Although there have been slightly fewer cuts and a very slight increase in funding, meaning that slightly less of the programme will be cut, I stand by many of the arguments I advanced in Committee. Such research is particularly critical at this time. As we face enormous pressures due to climate change and our understanding of the inter-relationship of these things leads us to conclude that more research is needed more urgently than ever, it is particularly unfortunate that such a cut has been proposed.
	Other facts have come to light since we debated this in Committee; I have, naturally, carried out further research. It seems that the Select Committee on Science and Technology's fifth report stated that, following the settlement for science announced in the 2002 spending review, NERC's income from the science budget will increase from £219 million in 2002-03 to £350 million in 2005-06. The rationale behind this increase was to allow NERC to take the lead in science, the Earth's life support systems, climate change, and so on. Last year funding reached £314 million, but that is still well short of £350 million. Having committed to that budget in 2003, have the Government now decided to make cuts in it. If so, such a position is particularly unfortunate. A breakdown of the funding for the Natural Environment Research Council shows that £8.1 million comes from the UK private sector. I wonder how the UK private sector feels about the proposed cuts and what percentage of the programme that is being cut is indeed funded by the private sector?
	Finally—and I was not as aware of this when we debated it in Committee—there is the responsibility line for the Natural Environment Research Council, which was set up under the Science and Technology Act 1965, I believe by Royal Charter. I only recently became aware of the difference between that sort of set up and the normal sort of quango we debate in your noble Lordships' House. Under the set up of the Natural Environment Research Council, Parliament is given a much wider overview of what is happening under the council. Indeed, the council's own website helpfully gives a diagram that shows Parliament sitting at the top, represented by the Secretary of State. The advertisement for the two vacancies on the Natural Environment Research Council, which appears on its website, helpfully says that the council is responsible to Parliament and other citizens.
	When something is as contentious as this, is there a mechanism that should be employed to refer the matter at least to the Select Committee in order to review the situation? It is surely very unusual that such a body of eminent scientists as have been very assiduous in writing to the press, in contacting us, and talking about this, speak with one voice, so concerned are they about cuts in the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology's programme. This is of central importance in NERC's work now, so they are frustrated at having been unable to change the direction of the decision taken. When the Royal Charter refers to Parliament being in prime position with regard to the research council, I wonder what that means, given that there is deep unhappiness over decisions taken. Where is Parliament's role in making its voice heard? I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare my interest, in that I am on a fundraising committee for an environmental research station in Scotland, which also receives funds under the Natural Environment Research Council's powers. It is very important that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has raised this subject and it is good that we should see what can be done about this. The amendment states that:
	"Natural England must have due regard to the purposes of the Natural Environment Research Council".
	Presumably they must also have regard to the findings of the bodies that are brought out by the Natural Environment Research Council. In that case, we wish to support the amendment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I take it that this is really a probing amendment, in the sense that the noble Baroness wants to start a short debate—which she has done very successfully—on the Natural Environment Research Council and the decisions it has recently taken. I appreciate that there are strong feelings on this issue and I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing this to the Floor of the House.
	NERC is an independent body. Decisions of this kind are solely for its council, which is made up of many eminent scientists. The NERC council, as we were told, has published its response to comments made during the consultation that preceded its recent decision. That, and the responses of Defra and its agencies, are all in the public domain. I understand that the NERC council has confirmed its plans to restructure the CEH. It agreed that the original drivers for restructuring—namely, funding only the highest quality science, reducing the trend in external income and ensuring long-term financial sustainability—all remain.
	However, after consideration of the various issues raised within what is described as the "stakeholder consultation" it has made some amendments to its original proposals. I understand that these changes will result in up to 40 of the 200 posts at risk in the business plan being saved. A plan to focus staff and research on four of the existing sites at Bangor, Edinburgh, Lancaster and Wallingford is unchanged. There are still plans to close the four research sites at Banchory, Dorset, Monkswood and Oxford. I also understand that to reduce any risk and ensure that critical work is not only maintained but enhanced, the NERC council has revised its funding allocation, adding £1.3 million to the original £15 million per year.
	Defra, for its part, agrees with the importance of placing the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology on a secure financial footing for the future. We welcome NERC's reassurance that that existing contractual obligations will be fulfilled to the highest standards.
	It is our intention, and the intention of Defra's agencies, to endeavour to work closely with NERC in the longer term to ensure that the research carried out following restructuring continues to be relevant to, and consistent with, Defra's priorities.
	We also welcome the amendment of the restructuring proposals to strengthen biodiversity and climate change research areas. I was asked whether Natural England, once established, can provide financial support to the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. It is clear that Natural England will have broad powers to enter into agreements with, and fund, other bodies where it is in its interests to do so and where it will help its objectives. However, a decision on whether or not to do so in any particular instance will, of course, be a matter for the board of Natural England.
	I cannot help the noble Baroness in relation to Parliament's role but, for my part, I cannot see any reason why the issue surrounding this decision cannot be raised in the normal way by any Member of another place or in this House, if that is what the Member wants to do. But, as I understand the legal position—I am repeating myself now—NERC is an independent body and the decisions that it reaches are solely for its own council. I do not think that I can help very much further.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, this is a DTI and not a Defra matter, and presumably discussions do take place between them. What overall responsibility to Parliament or to the DTI does NERC have in the first instance? Presumably there are rules which it must observe. If the Minister could follow that up with a letter, I should be very grateful.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I will do so, of course. I suspect that it has the same relationship with the DTI as other research councils have with that department. Defra has a relationship with it because it does work that we require to be done. However, I will write to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for the encouragement, as I see it, to pursue some of these issues through a different mechanism. He is right that this will probably no longer be the mechanism through which to pursue them. I recognise that the £4.5 million for NERC that comes from Defra is only about 50 per cent of its funding and that £7 million of the funding comes from other sources and other departments.
	There is a very real issue concerning both the external funding, which, as the noble Lord said, is diminishing, and the fact that half of the funding of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology comes from external sources. I do not think that the publicity that has taken place will be helping the case; nevertheless, it is something of which the council needs to be aware. I am fundamentally concerned about this issue. From what I can gather from its website and from historical research, the council seems to be responsible to Parliament, but at the moment I cannot understand what form that responsibility takes and I will pursue it through other, possibly more appropriate, means. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
	Clause 4 [Advice]:
	[Amendments Nos. 57 to 63 not moved.]
	Clause 5 [Carrying out proposals etc.]:
	[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
	Clause 6 [Financial and other assistance]:
	[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
	Clause 7 [Management agreements]:
	[Amendments Nos. 66 to 69 not moved.]
	Clause 8 [Experimental schemes]:
	[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 72:
	Page 4, line 25, leave out subsections (4) to (6).

Lord Bach: My Lords, we have moved to Amendment No. 72 with considerable rapidity. This government amendment would remove the power for the Secretary of State to authorise Natural England to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for experimental schemes. The inclusion of powers for the Secretary of State as a last resort to enable Natural England to do that would have carried forward existing powers that are currently available to the Countryside Agency.
	However, in the light of the very persuasive concerns voiced during Committee in this House and the fact that the Countryside Agency's powers have never been used, we are now happy to remove the provisions contained in subsections (4) to (6) of Clause 8 and the consequential amendment in Clause 100. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Having moved an amendment in Committee to the same effect, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for having agreed to remove these subsections.

Lord Carter: My Lords, we could never see the need for this part of the clause, and we welcome the Government's recognition of that fact.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we, too, welcome the fact that the Government have taken this matter on board. The subsection in Clause 100 about compulsorily acquiring Crown land appeared rather strange. You would think that the Crown could make up its own mind what it needed to do. We welcome the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
	Clause 9 [Information services etc.]:
	[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
	Clause 10 [Consultancy services and training]:
	[Amendments Nos. 76 to 79 not moved.]
	Clause 11 [Power to charge for services and licences]:
	[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 81:
	Page 5, line 17, leave out "4" and insert "4(1) or (4)(a)"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this amendment addresses an issue raised in Committee by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. It seeks to clarify the circumstances in which it would be permissible for Natural England, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to charge for providing advice. The amendment excludes from any charging regime advice which Natural England offers without having received a request to provide such advice. In other words, the amendment restricts the power to charge for advice to cases where advice is sought. I trust that the amendment meets the original concerns expressed by the noble Duke. I beg to move

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, once again, I thank the Minister for taking this attitude to this issue. Certainly it is nice that people can request advice. I suppose that they have to be prepared to pay for advice in these cases. That being so, I welcome the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
	Clause 12 [Power to bring criminal proceedings]:
	[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
	Clause 13 [Incidental powers]:
	[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
	Clause 14 [Grants]:
	[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.28 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Uganda

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is a timed debate. Each Back-Bench Member has three minutes. That is an incredibly short time but I should be enormously grateful if noble Lords would stick to their three minutes—that is, if they would finish before the Clock shows four minutes—so that the Minister has adequate time in which to reply.

Baroness Northover: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what co-ordination there is through the international community to resolve the conflict in northern Uganda.
	My Lords, I am very glad to have secured this debate on northern Uganda. I am especially grateful to all noble Lords who will be speaking tonight. As we have just heard, each of them will have a very short time; nevertheless, it shows a real commitment that so many wish to take part. The number of speakers reflects the huge expertise in this House on this part of Africa and the concern that people feel about the conflict in the region. I thank all noble Lords.
	It is now 20 years since conflict began in northern Uganda, yet so little international attention seems to be directed to this problem. That is surprising for a number of reasons. The conflict threatens to destabilise countries around, such as the DRC and Sudan, as well as Uganda itself. But above all, this is a conflict that has taken a terrible toll on children. War can exact a terrible price from women and children. But what has happened in northern Uganda is quite simply on a different level. The deliberate targeting of children is utterly appalling. Whatever the roots of this conflict, there can be no justification whatsoever for the Lord's Resistance Army targeting children as it has done. I welcome the fact that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for the five leaders of the LRA—even if it has made negotiation with the LRA more difficult.
	We know about the abduction of children and the way that children flee to towns at night in the hope of finding shelter, so that they are not stolen in the night. How can it be that we are paying so little attention? As Amnesty says:
	"Children are bearing the brunt of the ongoing violence in northern Uganda".
	UNICEF calculates that as many as 25,000 children have been abducted by the LRA for use as soldiers and sex workers since the conflict began. Children's rights are violated daily. The LRA also targets killings, abductions and rape at the wider civilian population.
	We know that the LRA is full of child soldiers—children who are brutalised and feel unable to return home. We know that girls are stolen for prostitution. And yet the world has turned a blind eye. That simply cannot continue. This surely must be the first proper test of what the countries agreed at the UN last September, when they said:
	""We believe that today, more than ever before, we live in a global and interdependent world".
	They agreed that collectively the UN had the responsibility to protect populations from crimes against humanity. That surely applies here. In 20 years the Ugandan Government have failed, for whatever reasons, to bring peace to the north of its country. The result is that crimes against humanity are committed there daily. Will the Minister say what role the new UN peace-building commission might play here?
	Many NGOs felt that when the UK chaired the UN Security Council at the end of last year—maybe it was chairing too many things at the time—the opportunity should have been taken to pass a resolution specifically on northern Uganda. Will the Minister tell us why that did not happen, and what might have been the reaction of China and Russia to any such proposals? Nevertheless, we have UN Resolution 1653, passed in January this year on the Great Lakes region, which includes reference to northern Uganda. How will that now be taken forward?
	There is the proposal from Jan Egeland, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, that a panel of experts should be convened on northern Uganda. There is also the proposal that there should be a UN special envoy to look at the problem. The international crisis group recently gave strong endorsement to both proposals, stating that,
	"the UN Security Council should recognise the LRA poses a threat to international peace and security",
	and must implement both these proposals. What action are the Government taking to ensure that that is done?
	Will the Minister tell us when he thinks the Secretary-General will report on these matters to the Security Council? Save the Children and Oxfam, among others, told me that this would happen in 12 days—on 27 March—so this debate was timely, but I hear from the FCO that this may not be the case. I spoke to someone earlier, as the noble Lord will be aware. I should like his comments on that.
	That report needs to be made; and it needs to be strong and effective. It must not be delayed. Actions need to follow from it. Clearly there needs to be a comprehensive strategy to end the war. Those who have been indicted by the ICC must be apprehended. The Ugandan military and other forces must do more to protect civilians. There needs to be dialogue with other members of the LRA. The Ugandan Government must be clearer that they support effective amnesties for those wishing to leave the LRA. Support has to be given to those who leave to prepare them so that they can best re-enter civilian life. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comment on all these proposals.
	DfID is already helping with humanitarian relief, but more will need to be done to assist those now in the camps, and as they seek to leave those camps. They must not be marginalised if a lasting solution is to be found. I note that President Museveni stated last Tuesday that he is preparing to resettle displaced people from their camps, and that the region is now peaceful. That seemed a little surprising. Do the Government have reason to believe that the security situation in northern Uganda has improved enough for people to be moved out of camps? If so, maybe we can all go home.
	This is an extremely complicated situation. The LRA has committed the most appalling atrocities. But this is a conflict which military action alone is never likely to solve. Not only do we need to see all parties seriously seeking a solution, we must make sure that the international community does not lose sight of this conflict. It is by spotlighting the plight of those in northern Uganda that we will surely encourage the action that the international community must now take. In those actions, I trust that the UK Government will take a leading role.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Saferworld, which is involved in Uganda. Real appreciation and thanks are due to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this disturbing issue tonight. It is a highly complex issue. Since President Museveni came to power there have been many rebellions in Uganda. Most have been resolved, but tragically that in the north persists. Brutality and cruelty are grim realities. Ruthless people in the Lord's Resistance Army viciously exploit and manipulate the situation. But we must not allow ourselves to be so mesmerised by the horror that we fail to recognise the complexity and weaken our resolve to work for the lasting peace for which those who suffer in Uganda so desperately yearn.
	Rehabilitation and counselling for those—especially the young who leave the ranks of the LRA—are priorities that we should support. Reconciliation as pursued by local leaders and the former Minister for the north, Betty Begombe, is a muscular and courageous cause that demands our imaginative and practical co-operation. It is disappointing that President Museveni is apparently so ambivalent on such imperatives himself. They are essential to peacemaking, which is indispensable if stability is to be achieved.
	In the couple of minutes available, I want to put several specific questions to my noble friend. In 2005 DfID made a firm commitment to use conflict assessments in formulating all its country assistance plans. Are such assessments central to decisions about our programme in Uganda? What is DfID doing to ensure that human security considerations are prioritised in decision-making in Uganda? How is that reflected in DfID's policy towards budget and sector support? How is DfID endeavouring to ensure that the implementation by the government of Uganda of Uganda's poverty eradication plan—especially the security and conflict provisions contained in Pillar 3 becomes a reality? Are infrastructural and economic development programmes in the North as effectively targeted on the needs of local people as they should be?
	The availability of small arms fuels the conflict in the north. Are we therefore doing all that we should to encourage the government of Uganda to make small arms control a key part of their efforts to enhance development and human security? Are we, for example, urging the Ugandan Government to implement the country's national action plan on arms management and disarmament which is an urgent priority? How are we supporting the implementation of that action plan?
	If development assistance to Uganda is to succeed, is it not essential to base it on a comprehensive assessment of the peace and conflict dynamics of the country? Together with that, is it not essential to address the failure of successive Ugandan governments to establish appropriate government institutions and arrangements that are sufficiently responsive, inclusive and accountable to the majority of Ugandans? Is it not the absence of those that has resulted in the underdevelopment of the north and which has exacerbated the disastrous conflict?

Lord Freeman: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, not only on winning the debate but also on her excellent speech. I find myself in complete agreement with her and I shall not repeat her arguments in any way. Instead I want to make a practical suggestion to help the hard-pressed communities in the north of Uganda that are caught up in the conflict zone. I would be grateful if the Minister would simply draw my remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for International Development. I do not expect a response tonight.
	About half a dozen international non-governmental organisations provide water sources in rural Uganda. I declare an interest as chairman of one of them, the Busoga Trust, which has been active for 25 years and has built well over 1,000 water sources. I shall speak briefly on behalf of all the NGOs involved in this important activity. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the NGOs to work in northern Uganda, particularly in the triangle of Gulu, Kitgum and Lira. That is simply because in the past it has been unsafe, although work is continuing in the north-east of Uganda on the Kenyan and Sudanese borders, but not in the conflict zone itself. If those organisations were able, with the help of the security forces, to move north, they could rapidly supply clean water to the villages. I appreciate that bore holes already exist in the campsites where the women, children and the population in general spend the evenings for security reasons. However, I believe work needs to be done in the villages. Clean water transforms village life. It provides health, vitality, and self-confidence. The noble Baroness referred in particular to the plight of the children. The lives of many children are cut short through disease, from drinking foul water.
	Her Majesty's Government have diverted some aid directly from the Ugandan central government to help orphans in the north of Uganda. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should consider diverting or using some of that money devoted to northern Uganda to engage the NGOs which, I believe, could build well over 100 water sources over the next six months. That may seem a modest programme, but although it may not solve the conflict, it will encourage the population to resettle in the rural villages and, I hope, help to bring peace and tranquility to a troubled region.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for initiating this debate. I too endorse what she has said, perhaps with one exception. From answers given by the Minister in previous debates and to Questions, I would like to acknowledge that the UK is clearly to the fore in negotiating UN Resolution 1653 and in providing support to the NGOs in the area, among other actions. I want to say a little about the important development which is the International Criminal Court mission to investigate the current conflict and to make arrests. I am indebted to Lorna McGregor who initiated a two-day workshop for the International Bar Association with 100 members of civil society organisations, the legal community from the north and from Kampala to discuss the work of the ICC within the national justice system. The preliminary conclusions from the workshop are quite interesting, certainly for conflict resolution work in the north of Uganda.
	There is a feeling that the ICC intervention from the outside may mask the lack of political will on the part of the Government to take decisive action to stop the war. Having failed in this mission, the decision to allow in the ICC was clearly politically motivated. That reflects a wider perception—widespread in Africa—that while the international community is desperately needed, the solutions must heed sovereignty and must come from within.
	The workshop also highlighted the failure of the ICC to make equal comment about the abuses, of which there are many, by the armed forces. The displaced people's camps are a terrifying experience, especially for women. I am currently taken up with concerns about a young university student, who was rescued from the LRA by army troops only to be raped and abused by government troops during three months in the camp prior to her escape. She is now in the UK with a baby daughter, not knowing whether the baby was fathered by the LRA or the army and is facing possible deportation.
	As ever, the resolutions, the statements, the promises and the human rights reports are all necessary. What is even more vital is that the recommendations be implemented. For example, it is crucial that pressure is maintained within and outwith Uganda if the UN resolution is to have an impact on the ground. The UN Secretary-General's report must be submitted and discussed before the Chinese assume the presidency at the end of this month, so that the Security Council is in no doubt what its action should be. As has already been suggested and pointed out by the noble Baroness, it is strongly suggested that there be a special high-level envoy appointed. That could happen immediately without any further resolution. It is a matter of a decision being taken and implemented.
	There should also be an investigation into LRA actions, which might be helpful in clarifying how to reduce the violence, and there should be widespread understanding by the international community that military action has not yet proved to be the answer, and, therefore, there has to be explicit ongoing support for political mediation and peace-building initiatives.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on her initiative, I endorse what she has said about the LRA and its victims and can see no case for negotiating with Kony and the indictees, for example. I shall make two points. First, with the current focus on the flawed election in Uganda as a whole, we should put that in the context of a president who, overall, has done fairly well. In the mid-1980s, I spoke for the opposition on Africa, when President Museveni came to power. Who can forget the atrocities, the insecurity, particularly in the Luwero triangle, the fact that since then there has been successful economic developments, and one of the more enlightened policies on AIDS in Africa as a whole with modernisation and stability? Of course, the president has never won over the north, which, in any event, is Obote territory. The electoral geography of the last presidential election showed that the north central area and the north-west were heavily against the president, but he won in the north-east. At the time of the election, he said that the war was largely over. Therefore, it is perhaps right to consider not just the Acholi territory in the north-west, but also other areas such as the west Nile and Karamoja in the north-east.
	Here I declare an interest as an adviser to a small British charity which includes Viscount Ingleby and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The charity is the Christian International Peace Service (CHIPS) which has been in north-east Uganda for 15 years, working for reconciliation between the Karamojong and the Teso tribes. The work is concentrated, therefore, on the border area between the tribes, where there was a massacre during the drought period of 2000. The charity works in agriculture, community and water development and veterinary services with para-vets moving with the cattle—a team composed wholly of Ugandans. CHIPS has identified a number of problems. One is the problem of the definition of internally displaced persons. No one is quite sure how many camps there are. There was a particular criticism of the quality of food provided by the World Food Programme, which is often said to be "bitter". There were allegations of delays and corruption. By contrast, a notable success has been the work of a small UK charity, the Teso Development Trust, which distributes food through the Church of Uganda and the Pentecostal Assemblies of God Church.
	Finally, it is clearly highly administratively convenient for the Government to use the WFP, which reduces costs, but there is a strong body of local opinion that the WFP and, indeed, the national government, should in part be bypassed because of corruption, and that aid should increasingly be directed to small and highly motivated non-governmental organisations.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for this opportunity to record my concerns about my visit three weeks ago to northern Uganda, where 95 per cent of the population has been herded into overcrowded camps. We witnessed conditions showing why 1,000 people die every week in those camps. We also met some of the tens of thousands of children who had been abducted by the LRA but who had escaped. Their stories have a chilling consistency, and their voices need to be heard tonight. I give just four examples. Florence, 15, was abducted in 2002 and taken to Sudan, given to an LRA commander as his "wife", and trained to become a soldier. She had to fight and take other children into captivity, treating them as she had been treated. She said, "I became wild, I didn't care about killing and I possibly became worse than them. If I had met my mother and father I would have killed them. I acted like someone who is deranged. I don't know how many people I have killed". She has been told that her parents are dead. Of her seven siblings, four were abducted, and the others were killed in battle.
	Richard, 22, was abducted in 1999. When he was with the LRA, he was forced to do three things: to rape a women publicly; to kill another abductee with a hoe; and to throw an abductee down a well. He received injuries from being beaten with a bicycle chain—a punishment for taking too long to push the abductee down the well.
	Irene, 15, was abducted in 2001. The LRA made her kill 10 other children. She slashed them open with a panga knife, scooping up the blood and placing it in her mouth. She has repeated nightmares about the first killing which occurred at dawn. It was the first time she had to drink human blood.
	Monica, 18, was abducted in 2003, taken to Sudan for military training, and given to a commander. She became pregnant and had to give birth with no help at all. She said, "I was just treated like an animal". She had to go to fight in Uganda, carrying her baby with her. Time and again, she has had to kill. She said, "In a battle, one has to kill". During one battle near her village, she met a woman whom she knew, and she asked her to take her child, then 18 months old, because she said that she could no longer carry her baby and her gun.
	I cannot continue with this terrible catalogue, but I must ask the Minister what Her Majesty's Government are doing to urge President Museveni to declare northern Uganda a disaster area. In addition, what are they doing to support international aid organisations to prevent the escalation of suffering and death in the camps, and to offer help to the Ugandan Government to provide the security to enable the people to return to their villages? Finally, what are they doing to encourage the Ugandan Government and international organisations to provide free education for children and young people who have escaped from the LRA? The most frequent cri de coeur was for education. This is a lost generation; they cannot afford school fees.
	I passionately hope that the Minister will promise that efforts will be made by international organisations to provide the education these young people need to find some healing from the indescribable suffering they have endured.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, it is an international disgrace that the horror of northern Uganda has been allowed to persist for as long as it has. The World Health Organisation—an organisation not given to facile emotionalism—has described the situation there as a very serious humanitarian emergency, undoubtedly among the very worst in the world today, and possibly the most neglected by the international media and the relief community. It has persisted as a consequence of cynicism and incompetence in Uganda and indifference in the international community. Thousands of UN resolutions have been passed in the past 20 years but, until just the other day, none related to northern Uganda.
	The disproportion of this situation is grotesque. Reliable estimates suggest that some 250 LRA guerrillas are keeping 1.2 million internally displaced people in camps and many more exiled from their homes. President Museveni has admitted that he could switch off the war. He keeps saying that he is going to do so, and keeps announcing that he has a plan. But from the record that we have seen, it is impossible to rely on him to take the action that he could other than under genuine, consistent and well co-ordinated international pressure. There is now more United Nations interest and activity, and I congratulate the Government on the part that they played in securing the passing of Resolution 1653. We look forward to the Secretary-General's report. The MONUC contingent sought to arrest the LRA leaders but, tragically, that effort was botched and the seven Guatemalan soldiers died in horrible circumstances.
	Our own Government have a very special responsibility for Uganda because of our historic presence there. I hasten to say that I know that my noble friend Lord Triesman is deeply personally committed and is working hard, both bilaterally and through the United Nations, to achieve what he can on behalf of the Government. We need the Foreign Office and DfID to act together—I am not always convinced that they do—within the country. I suspect that, in the past, the Foreign Office and DfID have been too charmed by Museveni and too focused on the south. It does not belittle the achievements of the Ugandan Government in the south to say that what has happened and what has failed to happen in the north is utterly inexcusable.
	I believe that we must place a very tight conditionality on the support that we give the Government of Uganda. We must use our influence, which ought to be large because of the scale of our aid, to secure better co-ordination. In the north, there is a welter of agencies and NGOs—there are some 200 NGOs in Gulu—that are small and under-resourced, with different remits and overlapping accountabilities, and that are tripping over each other. They are staffed by committed and devoted people, but I am afraid their efforts are all too chaotic and they are much less effective than they could be. One of the important proposals of the WHO report last July was for a systematic mapping of need to lead to a rational allocation of resources and, of course, to increased resources. Will the Minister say whether that mapping has been undertaken or whether it will be undertaken?

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, ask the very serious question: why, after so many years of atrocities in the north, have we continued to sing the praises of the Government of Uganda when they have obviously failed to address the problem?
	I have visited aid projects in Uganda and have met President Museveni and his wife on several occasions. I know of his firm leadership and commitment to his country's development since the dark days of Idi Amin. One of the very first countries to enter the HIPC process, Uganda is seen as a model of good governance and aid conditionality and an exact ideal of what Africa could be. Unfortunately, we are having to revise this rosy picture. It is not just the LRA; the present crisis owes something to the policies of the government, as well as to those of the rebels, creating protected villages and turning the north into a war zone. Almost its entire population is displaced, and more than 1 million women and children are still living in squalid conditions despite the UN's best efforts. The LRA has also, as we know, spread its tentacles into southern Sudan. Despite the government's offer of amnesty, the LRA has dodged every attempt of peacemakers to negotiate. Many believe that the entry of the ICC in this process last October has muddied the waters and, in the view of the Amnesty Commission, has made it even harder for sponsored initiatives, such as that of Betty Bigombe, to succeed.
	The judiciary, on the other hand, has grown in stature as a result of its role leading up to the recent elections. The ICC must not come in as a deus ex machina and give any impression of an alternative system, but must complement national judicial processes wherever possible. Perhaps the UK has a role here. At last, the country is receiving more attention at an international level; the noble Baroness has already mentioned the important but belated efforts of the Security Council. Uganda was mentioned in UNSCR 1653, which at least recognised that there was a conflict. But will the Minister press the Security Council through the Secretariat to keep Uganda on the agenda by appointing a panel of experts and perhaps a special envoy, which can be done without another resolution?
	In the last moments, I shall mention an initiative in the United States. In the past two years, three young filmmakers there have raised the issue of Uganda's children through a non-profit organisation called Invisible Children. This organisation has started an education programme in the Ugandan war area, which is partly funded by a bracelet campaign that employs Ugandans. Their documentary is being screened in more than 150 cities across the United States, showing case studies such as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Each screening includes a viewing of the film, a question and answer session and opportunities for ordinary people to become involved in helping the children of Uganda. It is an excellent example which could be repeated in Britain.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, as young men and women increasingly flee the LRA, which conscripted them so brutally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and others have said most eloquently, there is another aspect of the conflict to be resolved—their reintegration. Apart from reconciliation—which is astonishingly well handled by the Acholi people and the Amnesty Commission under Justice Onega—there is, or should be, work, the great reintegrator.
	My right honourable friend Hilary Benn has quite rightly cut our direct budget support to the Government of Uganda because of concerns about the democratic process under Mr Museveni's rule. But these funds will not leave Uganda; they will go—just over £20 million—directly towards the humanitarian relief effort in northern Uganda. A major element of that humanitarian effort must also be to rehabilitate those young men and women who lost their childhood in the wastes of the Sudanese training grounds provided to the LRA by the Sudanese Government.
	At a receiving camp for surrendered soldiers supported by UNICEF, which is one of the great forces for good in the north—I should declare an interest as a trustee of the UK committee—I spoke to Joseph, 18, whose two siblings died from cholera when they were all abducted into the LRA, who had limped with his untreated wounds for five hours through the forest to give the LRA the slip, and who then spent six months in hospital. He has the height of a 13 year-old.
	All Joseph had been offered was enlistment in the national army. It would have been better for him to have moved entirely away from fighting and slaughter. The Ugandan Government are not thought to have given much priority to vocational and technical education, preferring, like some others, so-called prestigious academic qualifications. But modern agriculture, food processing and local services would be of far more use to these communities and could be the lifeblood of these thousands of children's return to normality. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend, whether DfID's humanitarian assistance and what it can muster from the international community also includes support for specialised mental healthcare for these traumatised young people and vocational education and skills training.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for initiating this short debate. It is impossible to do justice to this big subject in just three minutes.
	We have heard today—particularly from my noble friend Lady Cox—about the appalling continuing atrocities of the LRA, which has for the past 19 years waged a brutal war against the Government of Uganda, carrying out horrific attacks on villages and squatter camps for the hundreds of thousands of displaced people, particularly the young people. The LRA has said that it wishes to govern the country according to the Ten Commandments. Sadly, it has completely ignored the first commandment—thou shalt not kill—and embarked on a reign of terror, often against the Acholi people whom it claims to represent. The figures vary but I understand that more than 1.6 million people are living in the most desperate conditions, fearing the LRA and still not trusting the government.
	So what can be done? I believe that we must continue to support the government of President Museveni in their continuing campaign to overcome the LRA, either by force or through negotiations. The recent multiparty election was certainly not a shining example of democracy in action and the continuing treatment of the opposition leader remains a cause for grave concern. I support and understand why Britain has attached conditions on aid, but Museveni's record also shows some remarkable achievements on economic growth, poverty reduction and the prevalence of AIDS. The president has declared his determination to bring peace to the north by committing troops and also engaging in reconciliatory talks. But actions speak louder than words, and several noble Lords have been critical—rightly so—about his lack of action.
	Our Government have actively supported Museveni's pursuit of peace. We have also supported a broad variety of welfare programmes in the region, including the Ugandan Amnesty Commission and MEGA FM, a local radio station promoting peace. I am sure the Minister, when winding up, will elaborate on our support for the various peace initiatives.
	Her Majesty's Government have also been a strong ally of the moves to bring the five LRA leaders to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. I trust that that support is being pursued in an energetic and effective manner. I wholeheartedly support the "Break the silence" campaign initiated and co-ordinated by the Church Mission Society in Britain. This campaign has amplified the Northern Uganda Church's appeal for help and certainly dispelled some of the spiritual fear.
	Of course, more can always be done. In all this activity it should be recognised that this is not just a national Ugandan problem; it is a crisis for the region. The problems in northern Uganda threaten the fragile peace process being pursued in southern Sudan. It is alarming that insurgents from northern Uganda are crossing the border and creating instability in the neighbouring state.
	I believe that a lasting solution to the problems in northern Uganda will be achieved only by a policy co-ordinated by the international community and the respective Governments of Uganda, Sudan and, indeed, Rwanda. Certainly the international community appears to recognise that the conflicts in the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes Region are all directly or indirectly connected and that nothing less than a broader regional solution will bring lasting peace and stability to this part of Africa.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, there are two views on the situation in northern Uganda. One is the view of President Museveni quoted by my noble friend—that the region is now peaceful and that the LRA remnants under Kony are now moving into the DRC, where they hope to join up with Otti in Garamba National Park. He says that people can return to their homes and that he wants the EU to assist with the resettlement. On the other hand, only yesterday three rebels were killed and a party of 100 suspected LRA was reported just over the border in southern Sudan, as the noble Lord has just said. So there is reason to believe that terrorists are still active in the north as well as in the neighbouring countries. Until recently, 40,000 children were leaving their homes every night for protection in nearby towns from abduction and forcible conscription.
	Certainly the LRA's centre of gravity has shifted to the DRC, where it killed eight MONUC troops in January, as has been mentioned. It would be useful to know what the UN is doing to exterminate the killers or to bring them to justice. Have additional UN troops been deployed in the Garamba area and is there effective co-ordination between MONUC and the UPDF? Has MONUC been tasked specifically to arrest the criminals who are wanted by the ICC?
	Though some NGOs have resumed activity in the north since the two aid workers were murdered in late October last year, there is a natural reluctance—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman—to venture back into a lawless region. But UNICEF, referred to by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is helping to address the problems of women and children living in the camps, while in the Lira district, where there are 350,000 IDPs, Saferworld—of which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is a distinguished ornament—and its partners are developing a nut export project, employing local women and helping to safeguard them against attacks. Does the Minister agree that, in spite of these efforts, the humanitarian response is not proportionate to the needs of the 1.7 million people living in squalid camps, where 1,000 a week are dying from lack of water, sanitation and healthcare?
	Can the Minister say how the UN cluster response principle is working in Uganda, which is one of the test cases for the idea? Is the UNHCR capable of undertaking the role of protection cluster lead in Uganda, given that it has no presence in the north, and what additional help can the UK offer now to the rehabilitation of the north generally? Do we consider, in particular, that a north/south road from Juba to Kitgum would help trade and improve security in both regions?

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I too would like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on securing this debate. Many interesting contributions have come from all sides of the House. It is an increasingly heated situation, especially as the ramifications of the worst drought in 20 years take hold in east Africa. These hardships will only compound what Reuters called the second-worst "forgotten" humanitarian crisis.
	With only three minutes to wind up from these Benches, I can only touch on the main issues surrounding this crisis—a significant blot on Uganda's success to date—and ask the Minister three questions. First, what discussions have Her Majesty's Government had with the authorities regarding the claims made by the International Crisis Group that the Ugandan army, while powerful enough to defeat the LRA, has failed to do so due to corruption, abusive behaviour and poor organisation, despite assurances from President Museveni?
	Ninety per cent of internally displaced persons in the north live in overcrowded camps where water is of such importance, as stressed by my noble friend Lord Freeman. The camps are often accessible only with a military escort. The security situation is such that non-governmental organisations no longer operate outside the main towns. In all of this, the tragedy is the damage inflicted on the children of Uganda. It is vital that they receive an education to provide them with skills and hope for the future. Secondly, therefore, what steps have Her Majesty's Government taken to put pressure on the authorities to provide a free education for these children?
	I have been unable to cover the many issues raised today. We are faced with an escalating situation that cannot start to be rectified until peace is achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, rightly mentioned the importance of controlling the availability of small arms. In the mean time, there are fears that Uganda's president may now use his mandate to crush the opposition and take a nosedive into dictatorship.
	I hope that the Minister will repeat what he has said before—that Uganda is a government priority. I hope that Her Majesty's Government have a plan towards a co-ordinated approach to remove the tarnish from this once shining example of Africa. Thirdly, therefore, will they put pressure on NePAD to encourage full and proper use of the peer review mechanism, to hold the Ugandan Government to account over their support and treatment of IDPs in the north, as well as encouraging action with regard to the International Criminal Court warrants?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and all noble Lords who have participated in a sobering debate.
	I can confirm that ending the conflict in northern Uganda is a government priority and remains so. In a sequence of telling illustrations, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reminded us exactly why it should remain so. Many of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about small arms, remain part of the general agenda, not just that in relation to Uganda. We believe that an international convention is desperately needed to stop trafficking in such arms.
	For nearly 20 years, the so-called Lord's Resistance Army has carried out atrocities of unspeakable barbarism and cruelty. Children have been abducted and brutalised, families torn apart, and the insecurity and fear that it has engendered has resulted in about 1.7 million people being sheltered in internally displaced persons' camps—nearly two-thirds of northern Uganda's entire population. No right-thinking person could fail to be moved or angered by the senseless and shameful loss of life and the continued suffering.
	Primary responsibility for protecting the people of northern Uganda and bringing this crisis to an end must rightly lie with the government of Uganda. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, made the point, with which I agree, that we must continue to support the government there if we want to see growth and development, a spread of democracy and the north embraced in any advances made. That is a difficult proposition, given what is happening.
	In all my discussions with President Museveni—and there have now been quite a number—he has consistently assured me that he is committed to seeing peace and security return to the north. He will not accept that any part of his country is a disaster area. When he makes his statements, he does so in a way that, in face-to-face discussion, would convince anybody. I believe him, but I also believe that he has no proven capacity to turn off the war—to use the phrase that my noble friend Lord Howarth did—because experience tells a different story. Aside from the moral imperative, I accept that it is clearly in his and Uganda's wider interest to do that, if it could. The continuing insecurity creates a negative perception of Uganda, its government and its army in the international community. It also undermines the economic and development gains made over the past 20 years—impressive as some of them have unquestionably been—the potential for future gains and the security of the wider region.
	However, since Uganda launched Operation Iron First in 2002 with the claim that the LRA would be wiped out in three months, the number of people in the IDP camps has tripled. The LRA's attacks continue, not just in northern Uganda, but in southern Sudan, and more recently in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. My noble friend Lady Whitaker is completely right to remind us of the spread of this scourge into southern Sudan, with, in the past, the collusion of the government of Sudan. The noble Lord, Lord St John, calls it a regional crisis, which are the right words.
	I am in the paradoxical position of rejecting the claim that President Museveni is not committed to the end of the LRA, though it is clear that that has not been achieved. What are the reasons for the failure of the government of Uganda and its army? A number have been put forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, mentioned one—corruption in the military. Consistent in all these claims is that elements within the Uganda army and establishment have no desire to see an end to that conflict, for reasons of personal profit, and that abuses among the northern population are being sanctioned and perpetrated by some elements. Those are serious and worrying charges. For the sake of the wider credibility of Uganda, and to build trust among the people of the north, these claims need to be subject to a thorough and transparent investigation and charges brought where wrongdoing is found.
	Sadly, questions also surround the capability and effectiveness of the Ugandan army. It is hard not to ask whether it has the capacity for the task. The United Kingdom Government funded a defence review in 2003 designed specifically to deal with these concerns. We believe that full implementation of the recommendations would provide a sound basis to take forward future procurement and training needs. These changes are needed in that army.
	Non-military methods are also needed—there is no purely military solution, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. That is why the United Kingdom, in co-ordination with other international partners, provided technical, logistical and financial support to the efforts of Betty Bigombe, a former Ugandan government Minister for the north, to mediate between the parties. The government of Uganda have supported those efforts. They provided the original tasking and agreement without which the talks would not have taken place. Unfortunately, those efforts did not ultimately bear fruit.
	Claims have been made that the government of Uganda did not do enough to support the talks once they were established. I have no doubt, however, that the primary responsibility for the lack of a negotiated settlement rests squarely with the LRA. I have been urged from time to time to think of Kony and Otti as people susceptible to argument and the call for peace and decency, but I see no evidence of that. I see a senseless and gratuitous trail of brutality, murder, disfigurement, torture and rape.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly raised the International Criminal Court. The most senior LRA commanders are now subject to warrants from the ICC. The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, was right to say that that does not excuse Uganda from its responsibilities and role in making sure that it acts in northern Uganda, and we will pressure it to do so. Let me deal with the ICC. There can be no impunity for the worst human rights offenders. The place for Kony and Otti is in the dock of the ICC, not in some offered honourable retirement for the acts that have earned them worldwide notoriety—my noble friend Lord Anderson is absolutely right about that point.
	If peace and security are to return to the north, the Ugandan Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, said, need to ensure that those LRA members who are not subject to the ICC indictments are repeatedly alerted to the existence of the Government's amnesty provisions and given the confidence and reassurance they need to lay down their arms and reintegrate into society. My noble friend Lord Judd also made just such a point. This also means the provision of effective support and assistance in reintegrating into their communities. In a new era of multi-party politics, the elected president, Government and Parliament must address all these concerns.
	In some telling questions, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about MONUC. I believe that MONUC has made a brave and strenuous effort to arrest the criminals wanted by the ICC. It is certainly tasked for that. As we have noted, seven Guatemalan troops gave their lives in recent efforts. MONUC is at full strength under its current mandate. The deployment issues about where it goes and how it pursues criminals must be a matter for it on the ground. But it is a sad fact for the immediate future that the majority of the people of northern Uganda will be dependent on the IDP camps and international humanitarian assistance. My noble friend Lord Howarth also talked about how tragic their circumstances are, and I shall return to that in a moment.
	So while we all wish they were not needed, the United Kingdom is at the forefront of international efforts in this regard, being one of the largest humanitarian donors to Uganda. In 2004-05, we distributed £11 million in humanitarian assistance. In 2005-06, that figure will be more than £20 million. I do not know whether I can easily say that the sums are proportionate, but they are what we believe we can afford in the range of our commitments to the Commission for Africa. Our aid is primarily disbursed through international aid agencies and NGOs such as the WHO and WFP, and helps provide food. As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said, more can be done through the NGOs to provide water, sanitation, shelter and protection. I do not rule out the important point made by my noble friend Lord Anderson about a possible contribution by the smaller NGOs in north-east Uganda.
	I say to my noble friend Lord Judd and others on the DfID programme that the majority of the money is delivered, as I think we all know, through direct budget support, governed by the Poverty Eradication Action Plan, agreed in partnership with the government of the north. A considerable part of the £70 million that has been put in so far has gone towards education. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about that. I say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that because it is direct support, the decisions about whether specialised health services should be provided have been a matter for the government of Uganda, but there is obviously great sense in taking her advice.
	We want to see an end to the need for aid. That is why the United Kingdom is at the forefront of co-ordinating the international effort to assist the government of Uganda in dealing with the LRA. The camps offer only a life of poverty—poor nutrition, no schools, no clothing, no bedding, no healthcare and no sanitation. I have no doubt that they strip the heart out of Acholi society. When I think about why people are still there and why they face this dilemma, I say to my noble friend Lord Howarth that the reason, in my view, is not because somebody has a systematic desire—I do not see much prospect of people being able to go home, given President Museveni's recent statements—but because there is no competent military way of resolving the problem that has been demonstrated that would carry any conviction.
	I turn now to the United Nations. With concerted support from the United Kingdom, the Security Council Resolution 1653 was adopted in January this year. It is a positive development; it is the first resolution to detail specific action against the LRA and record its pernicious effect on millions of innocent people. It rightly underscores the primary responsibility of governments in the region to protect their populations, and it requested the Secretary-General to make recommendations to the Security Council on how the United Nations' missions and agencies can assist.
	Other suggestions have been put forward in this regard such as the appointment of a special envoy or a Uganda-specific Security Council resolution. Resolution 1653 does a big part of the job; it was a vital step and was supported widely. There was no opposition to the process from China. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, also raised the question about whether there are more developments. I believe that all the developments that have been suggested warrant further investigation. That is well worth doing.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, we want these proposals to achieve outcomes. They must not just be about process. If the effort is put in, it should be about outcomes. My honourable friend Gareth Thomas will therefore be attending a conference in Geneva on 20 March on behalf of the Government to consider how our partners in the international community can best focus the international engagement. We do not know the date that the Secretary-General's report will be available, but I hope that it will be very soon. I also hope that NePAD will look at Uganda, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, suggested. It has quite an extensive programme ahead, but there is no reason why it should not do so.
	A number of points have been made in this short debate. I hope that I have responded to the points about the arrest of criminals and the humanitarian response. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the UN's cluster response. The cluster approach is currently being trialled. It is too early to say whether it will help in returning IDPs, but the signs at the beginning are relatively encouraging. We are closely involved, and we will watch what is happening.
	We were also asked whether we are committed to working with the Ugandan Government to build sustainable peace essential to ensuring the rehabilitation of the north. The community needs to be at the forefront of this effort of improving all the circumstances in the north. The improvement of the road network suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, could be a key part of that. I want to look into that in more detail and if there is more information, I will write to the noble Lord to ensure that he is completely up to date. But the principle is strongly agreed among us.
	During this debate, the undercurrent has been that we all need to do more. I could not agree more—the whole of the international community must do more. I hope that I have clarified much of what is happening and what is planned. Right-thinking people and people of any decency in the government of Uganda and the wider international community want to see an end to the LRA's reign of terror. They want to see the arrest of those indicted by the ICC and the reintegration of the child soldiers that it abducted, maltreated and savaged. Only then will the population of northern Uganda be likely to feel safe enough to leave the camps and return to their homes. I have said that I do not anticipate that that is about to happen with any great speed, and that is a candid assessment of what I see.
	We will continue to press the government of Uganda. As I outlined earlier, it is their country, it is their responsibility. These atrocities are on their territory. We will do all in our power internationally to help ensure that peace and security returns to northern Uganda. We will try to make the security assessments that are needed to ensure that we do it successfully. It is not a matter of blundering around but, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, of doing it with precision. Ultimately the Ugandans must take primary responsibility for achieving this. We are willing partners, but it is their responsibility and we must hold them responsible for whether they step up to this task or not.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 14.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 88:
	Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State shall make grants to meet Natural England's costs in carrying out its duties under sections 3(1), (2), (4) and 4(1) and in complying with directions given by the Secretary of State under section 16."

Baroness Byford: My Lords, on 1 February, at col. 293 of Hansard, I questioned the Minister about the funding of Natural England and the use of lottery money to accomplish some of its aims. On 8 February, the Minister provided additional detail, for which I am grateful. We have read the Hansards concerned most carefully, and we still feel that the Minister said that the bodies that would form Natural England spent about £360 million a year. He said that, of that, some £17 million was obtained from the lottery and that that element would be limited to £10 million over the next two years. I cannot be sure whether that means that Natural England will be £7 million short of current receipts in each of the next two years or that the income will take two years to drop from £17 million to £10 million. Either way, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is a sizeable sum.
	Natural England's mandatory duties must be given assured funding. Those duties include review, consultation, standards and advice and the following of general or specific directions. I can in no way estimate what fulfilling those duties will cost, in spite of the figures from the regulatory impact assessment, but I assume that Natural England will be constructed to deliver its mandatory duties. The rest of its duties should be added as and when external funding is found. That could come from government, the lottery, loans or private donations, but it would not be used to fund Natural England's prime functions.
	Natural England should be able to count on the full funding necessary to fulfil its primary and mandatory role. So far, such an assurance has not been incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the amendment would require certain areas of Natural England's work to be funded totally by government grant. Those areas would be any reviews relating to the general purpose; research activities; compliance with UK common standards established by the JNCC; provision of advice to public authorities; and compliance with any direction from the Secretary of State. Although we would expect all those areas of work normally to be funded from Natural England's core funding from government, we do not categorically rule out the possibility that Natural England could utilise other sources of funding. One example may be European co-financing or other EU funding sources such as the LIFE regulation. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would not wish Natural England to be excluded from applying for such funding. Programmes funded by the lottery have a limited life. It is too early to say whether individual programmes will be replaced.
	We understand the noble Baroness's concern that Natural England should be properly funded and that it should not be too reliant on, for example, lottery funding for top-up. I can merely reiterate some of the reassurances that I have given previously and highlight the fact that lottery income represents a small but significant element of the current bodies' income. They have not been encouraged by government to seek alternate funding from lottery sources for their core work. Nor will we encourage Natural England to do so once it is established. Rather, those bodies have been able to use their expertise to deliver the lottery distributors' aims, and we have encouraged them to do so. The noble Baroness expressed fear in an earlier debate that money would be diverted from charities and voluntary bodies, but the opposite has been the case. The bulk of lottery money that is given to the confederation bodies, English Nature and the Countryside Agency, is passed on to local communities. Confederation bodies are assisting lottery distributors by making available their grant-giving machinery. In the case of the local heritage initiative, they were successful in attracting more than £1m of private sector sponsorship.
	The noble Baroness asked about the current position. As she said, that income amounts to £17 million or about 5 per cent of the bodies' total expenditure of £360 million. That does not include EU co-funding of the agri-environment programme or the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund. Much the largest source of income has been the lottery. During the next two years, income is projected to drop to around £10 million, unless it is replaced by sums not yet awarded. The vast majority of that is where the bodies act as a distributor rather than a recipient of funding. I hope that the noble Baroness is satisfied by my response.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am not sure that I am satisfied, but I thank the Minister for her response. I have not referred on Report to my earlier discussions with the confederation bodies, but I was trying to make sure that funding would be guaranteed for the mandatory responsibilities that Natural England would undertake. I accept that it may look to additional sources of funding for other projects, but I was not talking about that sort of funding. I was seeking clarification on the core funding for the successful operation of the body. I will read carefully what the Minister said. It is not an item of major concern, but it is of concern. The Minister spoke about possible EU and agri-environment money, but that money will not definitely be available in the amounts that it has been in the past. That is why I sought greater clarification. I thank the Minister for her response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 15 [Guidance]:
	[Amendments Nos. 89 to 92 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Page 6, line 25, at end insert "as soon as is reasonably practicable after giving the guidance"

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in Committee, we were asked by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, to consider whether any guidance issued by the Secretary of State should be published "comtemporaneously". We could not accept that wording but could not argue with the logic and principle of his amendment and undertook to come back to the matter on Report.
	We believe that there ought to be a degree of consistency in the Bill and, once we had decided that it was right to publish such decisions as soon as was practicable, we could see no good justification for not applying it to all decisions made by the Secretary of State under the Bill. Therefore, this group of government amendments adds various requirements that the Secretary of State should publish the directions, guidance and lists which he may issue under the Bill,
	"as soon as is reasonably practicable"
	after their issue. I hope that the noble Duke is pleased with the response. I commend the other amendments in the group, and I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we thank the Government and the Minister for agreeing to address the issue that we raised in our amendments in Committee about how Natural England had to follow up on its policy developments.
	The wording is probably the most practical that can be achieved for all the categories of guiding, directing, advising and all the other things that Natural England will be called on to do. It has also relieved us of the need to get our tongues around the word "contemporaneously" more than once this evening. We must thank the team on the Bill that this option is not quite as obscure as what apparently came up in debate yesterday, where the Government had to dispose of the phrase "the effluxion of time" in favour of slightly simpler wording. Now we are just left with having to get our tongues around "practicable". We welcome the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
	Clause 16 [Directions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 97:
	Page 6, line 35, at end insert "as soon as is reasonably practicable after giving the directions"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 99:
	After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
	"SUSTAINABILITY DUTY FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
	(1) The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c. 45) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In section 4 (purposes)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(a), after "further the" insert "sustainable";
	(b) in subsection (1)(e), omit "where it is relevant to do so"."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the issue of whether the agencies established by the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 should have had sustainable economic development as a core purpose. My amendment suggests that the Act should say that one purpose of an agency is to further the sustainable,
	"economic development and the regeneration of its area",
	and should not include the words,
	"where it is relevant to do so".
	In Committee, we also discussed the issue of rural areas and whether regional development agencies had enough duties. When I looked again at the 1998 Act, I was satisfied that its wording on rural areas was satisfactory. It says:
	"A regional development agency's purposes apply as much in relation to the rural parts of its area as in relation to the non-rural parts of its area".
	If there is still a difficulty over subsection (2) regarding its purposes, it is indeed for government—particularly for Defra—to ensure that the RDAs take their duties with regard to rural areas equally seriously. The 1998 Act does not need amending in that regard.
	I return to the sustainability issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has said that,
	"over a number of years a lot of effort has gone into ensuring that sustainability plays an increased part in the RDAs' role".—[Official Report, 28/2/06; col. 243.]
	If that duty were actually enshrined in statute—ensuring that sustainability played a part—would less effort have gone in? The agencies would understand more fully that it had to play a part. However, there is some good news for the Minister, in that Sir Martin Doughty was speaking at an event in your Lordships' House today on biospheres. In passing and with no reference to this amendment he said how cheered he was by the recent change in attitude that he sensed among regional development agencies. He had had a meeting last week with the chairs of all those agencies and now felt that there was a much greater understanding of the need for sustainability. I had not prompted that discussion nor made my feelings known to him, so I felt that his was a helpful comment to come out of the blue.
	I accept that Defra is not in the lead on this and that the DTI is still the department in charge of regional development agencies. Thus I hope that the DTI, when looking at this short debate, will realise that we will not take our eye off the ball. We will continue to look at whether regional development agencies are acting in the interests of sustainability. In Committee I reported on the comments made by bodies such as Sustainability South West, giving many reasons why the regional economic strategy at the moment did not measure up in sustainability terms. I hope that regional development agencies, and whoever is assessing sustainability issues in each region, will take those comments on board and try to improve their performance. Sir Martin indicated this morning that they had tried to make a good first step, and I believe that they need to be further encouraged down that road. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the way in which she has moved the amendment. I am not sure what the Minister's response to it will be, but all through we have expressed our concerns about how the RDAs work and the likelihood that they will have more regard for the bigger urban areas than for the rural areas. So I take the comments that the noble Baroness made.
	I think that this is the only opportunity for me to bring to the attention of noble Lords a particularly important issue. Would this be something that the CRC would deal with? On the issue of affordable housing, some safeguards were put in place in 1992, after a long struggle, which ensured that no more than 80 per cent of affordable housing equity could ever be bought by occupiers of rural shared-ownership houses. That restriction gave landowners, planners and parish councils confidence that those houses would never be sold on the open market. That stayed in place until recently. I understand that, from 1 April, the 80 per cent restriction will be removed straightaway. If that is so, it is a very worrying aspect of an extremely important part of rural life. I was not sure where else I could raise the matter. I have written to the Minister directly on it, but I make no apology for raising it again.
	The issue that my friend Moira Constable raised with Ms Cooper was the right of staircase and rural shared ownership. The difficulty that I find myself in—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, just referred to the need to alert the DTI to the difficulties—is that the matter actually lies with the ODPM. I thought that both examples sat very well with each other. Here we are creating a new body, which Defra is instigating, but it overlaps with two departments—and maybe several others as well. This is a real issue, and my question, in the light of what the noble Baroness said, is whether this is something on which the commission could have said "Stop, this is one step too far". Is it a Defra matter or a ODPM matter or a DTI matter? Where does it go?
	I thought that this was an ideal opportunity to raise an issue that would affect the RDAs as well. What input will they have? At the end of the day, who has the final say on what the outcome will be? I apologise for raising the matter, but the issue is extremely urgent, because this will happen on 1 April. I gather that, at the moment, unless we can persuade the Minister and he can talk to other Ministers, it is a fait accompli and there is nothing that we can do about it. It will hugely detrimental in the rural areas to housing that we have now and, more worryingly, for housing that we hope to prepare in future.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support as strongly as I can what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has been saying. I had intended to raise the matter under Amendment No. 102, in the name of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington, but, as we seem to have got there already, I may as well say something now.
	I hope that the 100 per cent enfranchisement or purchase right is not in the Government's mind because, if it happens, it will have the effect of completely abolishing a certain amount of affordable rural housing that exists now. What is even worse, perhaps, it will dry up the supply of new sites on which such affordable housing can be built. Those who own such sites will have no confidence in the system. That will be a serious matter in a large number of villages when there is at present a degree of hope that rural people on less than average incomes will be able to get a house in the locality that they come from or where they have a job and want to be. I hope that the Government take the matter extremely seriously.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a former trustee of the Rural Housing Trust. I became aware of this situation only within the last 10 days, and it is as serious as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, have said. It has already been explained that at the moment you can staircase up to 80 per cent of shared ownership, but the other 20 per cent stays in the ownership of the housing association. That means that when you come to sell the property you get only 80 per cent of the value, and in effect the house remains in the affordable social housing sector in perpetuity; it does not go out into the open market. That is the reason landowners are prepared to release land on what are called exception sites at less than market value, because they know no one will ever profit from it and it will always be used for affordable housing.
	I have just learnt from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, that this proposal may be due to a flaw in the Leasehold Reform Act 2003. It is to happen from 1 April, and the supply of land is already drying up very quickly. I have heard from the Rural Housing Trust, which has a large number of sites, that the landowners are stopping right now, because if this goes through the houses will be sold out into the open market. The first tenant—or the last—will get the benefit of the market value.
	The company I was involved with tried to do this. We were prepared to let land go at agricultural value: on an exception site, for £2,000 an acre. The development value would be £50,000 to £100,000 an acre. We would be prepared to turn our back on that. We were not going to get development value anyway because it was an exception site; it was an exception to the planning situation. But if we had known that the tenants would end up with development value, there is no way we would have provided the sites.
	I wrote today to my right honourable friend John Prescott on this issue, because it involves the ODPM. What is interesting, and I am afraid this involves the Minister, is that the Affordable Housing Commission, chaired by Elinor Goodman, is reporting in the spring, and in a recent Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the Minister commented on that report and said:
	"We would not want to pre-empt the recommendations of the commission".—[Official Report, 16/2/06; col. WA 197.]
	That is exactly what this proposal will do. I am sure the recommendation will be to stop this somehow.
	There is the problem of the unintended consequences of the 2003 Act, but that is a different matter. How we deal with that, I do not know, but we were intending—we have just had a word with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—to raise this question under rural-proofing. This is an excellent example of where the Commission for Rural Communities would have come in on rural-proofing and have pointed out this advantage, just so this issue could be examined in all its aspects.
	There is an ironic aspect to this. In 1992, when I was the opposition spokesman for agricultural and rural affairs, there was a proposal of exactly this nature from Mr John Gummer, who was the Environment Secretary, to allow staircasing up to 100 per cent, and we managed to block that with the help of Tory Peers. We worked together on the issue on both sides of the House. I had lots of help from government Back-Benchers. We blocked the issue then, and I hope we can block it now.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that some Tory Peers have remained consistent in that view. I never for one moment thought we were going to discuss rural housing under this amendment, but since the noble Lord has raised the issue, I take this opportunity to endorse everything that has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. If the abandonment of the right of staircasing goes ahead, and I really believe that this will happen, there is a genuine concern that among landowners and farmers, people who would let land go for reduced values in order to allow for special rural needs housing, the market will dry up. I really hope the Government take that on board. I regard this as a very serious matter.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I speak from personal experience, although not specifically in relation to exception sites. We had the good fortune, if one could regard it as such, to get caught up in a major development. There was the usual negotiation over what I would regard as wholly proper gain for the community, as a result of this development. It was a very large development and part of the price was 200 social houses. We thought that was a perfectly acceptable price to pay. The way it works is that the gross value enhancement is diminished by the cost of those houses to the landowners, who were me and my brothers. We thought that was a reasonable price to pay. The problem was overcoming, in those days, the right to buy. We were quite prepared to give up the value and we accepted that the town should have this benefit. We were not prepared to do it, however, if the first people to move in could live there for three years and then have the complete capital enhancement as a result, because they had lived there for three years and therefore had the right to buy. That was a technical problem, writ somewhat smaller.
	This is precisely the same problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and my noble friend said, if the protection of this social ownership is removed, nobody will be prepared to put their sites into a scheme of this nature in order to provide social housing for their local communities, whatever their need may be. They will feel it is a gross abuse that somebody can move into that property and, after a relatively short period of time, inherit the gross value, which was infinitely greater than the sum for which they originally provided, which is in effect at a sacrificed price. This is a very significant matter and I do not know what the effect of this change will be. If it does happen to go wider than the specific case of exception sites, then it will bedevil the whole construction of social housing on a wider scale. It is common practice nowadays for social houses to be provided on quite a large scale as a large part of major developments. In effect, society gets those houses for nothing, because the landowner sacrifices the value in order to make it possible. Although landowners do have a desire to make a profit, they also happen to have a social conscience that goes with it. That is right and proper in view of social housing.
	Perhaps I may make a slightly acid comment. One of the weaknesses of the development gain/charge which the Government are considering is that it will make what is at present a free negotiation between a landowner and his local communities, as to the gain that the community should get, into something that will be bedevilled by a national charge and that will, heaven help us, go back to the Treasury and not to the local community who generated the development in the first place.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that he has just given an excellent example of land that had inherent development value. The crucial point about exception sites is that they will never get development value. They are only allowed in by the planners on the basis of social housing and staircasing.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, that is perfectly true, but the two are part of the same equation. I agree that I was talking about land that would get development. But equally it is the same principle. If this change is made, the occupant would in effect get the development value, rather than the landowner who gave up the land knowing that, for the benefit of their community, they would not get the development value. The principle is precisely parallel. It is a very dangerous move, in my view.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I support what we have heard about the seriousness of the situation. In our village, I too have given some land for affordable housing. Some of it is done under shared equity and, come April, the village will be at risk of losing that housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, the point endorses what I shall say about rural-proofing under my Amendment No. 102. To correct what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, I point out that the rural-proofing should have been done by the ODPM in its systematic examination of all the legislation made and initiatives taken, to ensure that there are no adverse rural consequences—or, preferably, that there are positive rural consequences.

Lord Hylton: If possible.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: Exactly, my Lords. I gather that people in the ODPM now realise that they have made a mistake, and wonder how they will deal with it. It seems as though they need primary legislation to deal with it, which is quite serious, but there may be other ways round it. I hope that we can get some sort of statement before 1 April—perhaps it is 3 April—when the measures come into operation. It is a prime example of where rural-proofing could have avoided the whole problem in the first place.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 99 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who moved it in her customary, short and articulate way. The debate then took another course. It was important that the strong expressions of opinion about the issue were heard, even though it is clearly outside the scope of what we are discussing under the amendment. I am not in a position to be able to answer in an adequate way on the issue. I promise to make sure that my honourable friend Jim Knight, the Minister responsible for rural housing in Defra, has his attention directed to tonight's Hansard and what has been said tonight in Parliament. I am sure that he is aware of the matter, and I shall speak to him about it myself. I thank noble Lords who have dealt with it.
	The advice that I have received is that the CRC could not stop the situation because it is a housing regulatory matter. However, I confirm that it is exactly the kind of issue that the CRC might in future pursue with the ODPM as a rural-proofing matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. I hope that noble Lords who have spoken with such feeling about it will excuse me if I say no more about it tonight. I shall return to the amendment.
	The noble Baroness will know that, from April last year, regional development agencies' activities have been driven by what is described as a new tasking framework. That framework requires each RDA to show, in its corporate plan, how it will address the priorities identified in the regional economic strategy for the region, and contribute to delivery of four overarching government PSA targets. One of those overarching targets is sustainable development, a target that we in Defra hold on behalf of government.
	RDAs welcomed the introduction of the strengthened remit for sustainable development and, through their six-monthly reports to Ministers, will provide a summary of how they are contributing to delivery of sustainable development in their regions. That new requirement will be an effective method of ensuring that RDAs not only undertake their activities in a sustainable manner, but contribute to sustainable development in their regions. RDAs are aware of their role in that; I was pleased to hear that Sir Martin Doughty thought that there was genuine interest from the RDAs in that area. In addition to funding sustainable development projects, many RDAs have established environmental management systems, sustainable transport plans and project appraisal tools that help to mitigate the environmental impacts of their operations and activities.
	Although RDAs are already making a significant contribution to the delivery of sustainable development, the steps that the Government have taken to strengthen the framework in which RDAs operate should improve their effectiveness in delivering sustainable developments in the region. Guidance to the RDAs on producing regional economic strategies was reviewed last year to ensure that they and the actions to implement them are based on sustainable development principles, set out in our 2005 national sustainable development strategy.
	I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured to some extent, both by what I have had to say and by the meeting she attended earlier this week. Ministers will be looking very closely indeed to make sure that RDAs with any responsibilities carry them out in the manner that Parliament expects.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, while the noble Lord is still standing, will he take away small, medium-sized and local abattoirs as a classic example of the kind of sustainable development that is needed and which regional development agencies should jolly well be getting on with?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I will take that away.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate. If it seemed to go a little wide of my amendment, perhaps I can assure the Minister that the subject would have come up at length anyway. I was intending to mention it under my next amendment and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, was planning to do the same under his amendment. I am sure the time we spend on it now will be regained in future amendments.
	I associate myself with the comments about the seriousness of the issue. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who is very experienced in these matters, how we might influence a matter that seems difficult to influence. But as far as this amendment is concerned, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am somewhat reassured.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I have tabled a topical Question on this subject which we may get next week.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 17 [Commission for Rural Communities]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Leave out Clause 17.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the thorny issue—for me— of the Commission for Rural Communities. In Committee I proposed that we could try restructuring the Commission for Rural Communities. I ran two arguments in parallel—that we should restructure it, or not have it. I listened carefully to the comments in Committee and I have now come down firmly in favour of the presumption that we should not have the Commission for Rural Communities.
	Our Benches would be the first to say that rural areas need a strong voice as they are always in danger of being seen as expensive by government. They are seen as expensive to service, peripheral, and a problem. I would not accuse Defra of holding that view because it champions rural areas, but every other department tends to see rural areas as a problem. If those areas are to get a fair deal, then Defra needs to be known as a department for bright and ambitious civil servants, and MPs elected to rural constituencies need to have their voices heard. They and the parliamentary mechanism, such as the EFRA Select Committee, need to be a first port of call when a rural issue comes to the fore. With such in mind, our Benches are viewing how a democracy should work and whether a Commission for Rural Communities would further that sort of aim. The rural advocate and his Commission for Rural Communities—if they are assiduous, bright and energetic, and that is not an aspersion on the individuals taking over the roles because I believe that they are all of those—will inevitably lead a lot of the rural agenda and become the focus for comment on rural issues. I believe that that will diminish the role of those with a democratic mandate.
	I accept that there is a case for rural-proofing and we have just had a brilliant example of why. I was going to use the example in this amendment but now I do not need to—so I am glad for the time saved. But what has the Commission for Rural Communities been saying about the rural housing issue? I have not seen anything that is public and I would be interested to know whether the rural advocate has met with ODPM and, indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the matter. What rural-proofing has taken place and what comments have been made, for example about the proposal by the Department for Work and Pensions to end card accounts in post offices? Those are two enormous issues that will affect rural areas and which have emerged in the past couple of months. I have seen no comment from the Commission for Rural Communities on those. I accept that the commission does not exist yet, except in shadow form, but either it will have to take on this role or, if not, it is hard to see how it can be effective in relation to rural-proofing. Regarding the other issues, I am concerned that the focus is being shifted away from those with a democratic mandate.
	I have a couple of further points. It seems that Defra is moving a little in the opposite direction to other departments because, in terms of quango creation, the government website states that NHS Estates, for example, was wound up as an executive agency; core functions were brought within the department and local functions were transferred to local NHS bodies. Regarding the Ministry of Defence, there is a long list of agencies that have been abolished. I wonder if Defra is alone in not following through opportunities to abolish quangos. I am sure that the Minister can tell me which quangos Defra intends to get rid of.
	I have pondered long and hard over this issue and I have had some impressive representations, including one from Professor Michael Winter who chairs the South West Rural Affairs Forum. He made several useful points as to why he did not feel that the restructuring that I proposed would work. He said that rural affairs forum chairs were different animals than those who would sit on the Commission for Rural Communities and that sometimes there might be a conflict; although he, I believe, does both jobs.
	This is all or nothing. We are not going to see a restructuring of the Government's proposals for the Commission for Rural Communities; so we will either go for a quango or we will not. We on these Benches believe that the right place for a voice for rural communities lies with elected members, whether they are locally or nationally elected; and it is with that in mind that I beg to move.

Lord Carter: My Lords, we had an interesting debate on this matter in Committee and I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree that the strength of the argument was powerfully on the side of retaining the Commission for Rural Communities. I thought that at the end of that debate that the noble Baroness had agreed that that was the way that the argument had gone—obviously she has changed her mind since. I had hoped that this was a probing amendment—as is mine, which proposes to leave out Clause 85. I have no intention of pressing that amendment, which aims only to obtain some assurances from the Minister on the record regarding the work of the levy boards.
	We had a powerful argument in Committee and there is no need to repeat that now. As I pointed out then and at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, eventually came round and is now in favour of the Commission for Rural Communities. I repeat the question that I asked at Second Reading and I still have not had an answer: which of the 20 organisations that have lobbied us support the noble Baroness's proposal not to establish the commission? All the evidence that we have received is that not a single body supports it—perhaps with the exception of the Countryside Alliance. Certainly the NFU, the CLA and all the other organisations are strongly in favour of the commission.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I will not repeat all the arguments I made both at Second Reading and in Committee. There is no doubt that Defra cannot do the job of the CRC. It cannot criticise its own government or be independent. Neither can local authorities do it; this is a national role which cannot possibly be done by local authorities. I happen to know that the Countryside Agency is doing a lot of work behind the scenes on housing and card accounts, which is how I come to know that the ODPM is aware of the mess over housing. Very often the work of the Countryside Agency—and, in the future, the CRC—will be done behind the scenes. I know from my own experience that sometimes you have to stamp your foot and make a bit of a public scene about it, but very often you are better off trying to achieve your aims quietly, by talking to the relevant people. I will say no more, but obviously I oppose this amendment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, as the House knows, Clause 17 establishes the Commission for Rural Communities as an independent non-departmental public body, with constitutional functions as set out in subsequent clauses and Schedule 2. Statutory status will enable it to perform its role independently and impartially.
	There was an excellent debate in Committee on 8 February. On that occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, accepted with striking good grace that she had lost—to use, I think, her phrase—this particular argument, and that the CRC would be established by the Bill. The noble Baroness did not for a moment suggest that she had changed her own mind, so there is nothing inconsistent in what she says tonight. Indeed, I can imagine her considering whether there was any prospect of amending the Bill so that its constitution and structure were different, or of not having it at all. The noble Baroness said:
	"It will be tremendous if the CRC does all the things we mentioned".—[Official Report, 8/2/06; col. 694.]
	That is the point I wish to make. I want to do my best to reassure the noble Baroness that I am fully confident that the CRC will go a long way towards doing those things.
	We know that the CRC will be a strong independent rural advocate, advisor and watchdog, helping to ensure that the Government's policies make a difference to people in rural areas. We believe that we are seeing evidence of that already. For example, its staff engaged with the rural public at a recent series of well attended regional seminars to find out more about people's priorities for rural housing needs. Its very recent report, Using the Additional Revenue from Reducing Council Tax Discount on Second Homes—which must have been one of the longest titles of any report there has ever been—was heralded as "hard-hitting" in a high profile press article on 8 March. The CRC is already engaging with its stakeholders, and is recognised as doing so. We know that it will pay special attention to tackling social disadvantage, and to rural areas experiencing economic underperformance.
	We know that it will have rural-proofing at the heart of its role, ensuring that government policies are rural-proofed. In its role as an advocate for rural communities, it will bring a uniquely national perspective and, we believe, a single-minded focus on rural matters, which no other body could provide. That is why we argue that the country's hundreds of democratically elected local authorities could not perform this national role in the same way as the CRC. All this was said in Committee; we still maintain it.
	I want to offer one piece of reassurance to the noble Baroness, about the CRC's accountability, once it has been established as an independent non-departmental public body. The CRC, as all NDPBs, will operate within a formal framework of governance, overseen by the Secretary of State, with the support of Defra officials. Its relationship with the department—its paymaster—will be set out in broad terms in a partnership agreement, and its day to day functions will be supported by a corporate plan, management statement and financial memorandum. Its senior staff will meet regularly with Ministers and Defra's Permanent Secretary to ensure that everything is running smoothly. It will publish its annual reports and accounts, laying them before both the Secretary of State and the general public and, in doing so, it will be transparent and open to scrutiny. In other words, it will enjoy a position of independence and impartiality, which are both crucial, and that will allow it to make a difference to rural communities.
	The Bill, when it comes into force, will establish the CRC as a new, strong NDPB with advisory, advocate and watchdog functions. This very positive measure will address the needs of rural communities and the people who live and work in them.
	The noble Baroness asked what the CRC has said about the Affordable Rural Housing Commission and whether the rural advocate has met the housing commissioner. The Commission for Rural Communities contributed written evidence as part of the call for evidence from the Affordable Rural Housing Commission. Representatives from the CRC are invited to a meeting of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission on 19 January to discuss that evidence. The rural advocate has been in contact with the commissioner, Elinor Goodman, and has also visited each of the English regions and talked to rural people to find out what they think the affordable rural housing needs are. There is no doubt that affordable rural housing will remain a priority for the CRC and the rural advocate. There is obviously a difference of view in this House, and it has been fairly expressed both in Committee and tonight. We believe that Clause 17 should be allowed to stand.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I have to say that I feel even less reassured now. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about the behind-the-scenes work and the necessity to stamp your feet and make a fuss behind the scenes to bring about change underlines my argument about why we need to reinforce democracy and have those sorts of discussions in public.
	The Minister answered some of my queries and was therefore helpful. Nevertheless, if the Affordable Rural Housing Commission comes along and has meetings in your area and then the Commission for Rural Communities, which is also very concerned about rural housing, comes along and does the same, people in that area will be entitled to ask what all these different commissions are and how they relate to each other.
	Therefore, I am sorry to say that, in one way, the contributions this evening have underlined my arguments. I assure your Lordships that if the hour were not so late, I would have tested the opinion of the House on this matter, but I recognise that this is not the moment to do so. I shall not return to this issue because I recognise that these Benches have lost this argument for now. In conclusion, I extend my personal best wishes to the staff and the commissioners who are to take on this task, even though, in legislative terms, I wish that they were not going to exist. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 2 [Commission for Rural Communities]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 101:
	Page 52, line 20, at end insert—
	"(3A) In making appointments to the Commission, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing at least one person who has experience of, and has shown some capacity in, the affairs of local authorities in promoting and meeting rural needs.
	(3B) In making an appointment under sub-paragraph (3A), the Secretary of State shall have regard to any views expressed by persons appearing to him to represent local authorities."

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who, unfortunately, could not be with us at this stage of the Bill. Proposed new subsection (3A) in the amendment would require the commission to bear in mind local authorities in promoting and meeting rural needs. That nearly overlaps with what is to follow shortly.
	Proposed subsection (3B) states:
	"In making an appointment under sub-paragraph (3A), the Secretary of State shall have regard to any views expressed by persons appearing to him to represent local authorities".
	I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 101 revisits an issue that we discussed in Committee—the desirability or otherwise of the Secretary of State to make sure that at least one member of the CRC's board has experience of, and capacity in, the affairs of local authorities.
	We have given the matter some consideration since Committee, and reflected on the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Renton of Mount Harry and Lord Brooke, among others. We reached the same conclusion as before that it would be restrictive to accept the wording of the amendment, as having written local authority expertise into the Bill's composition, we would need to consider adding similar criteria, covering all the CRCs and any other stakeholders to ensure that their interests were similarly represented on the CRC's board.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in Committee, we agreed that the local authority angle was an important one that could be covered by the range of expertise on the board of members. We are convinced that the right way in which to achieve that is via the Secretary of State's responsibility for ensuring a fit between prospective board members' expertise and personal skills and those required by the CRC.
	Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2 on page 52 of the Bill and the code of practice laid down by the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments already make provisions for that. Therefore, the Bill does not need to be more specific than that. While appreciating the motives behind the amendment, we maintain that it is unnecessary and invite the noble Baroness who spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, to withdraw the amendment for those reasons.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation and response to my noble friend's amendment. Obviously I am not in a position to make any other observations, except to say that he will be able to read them in Hansard. I felt that it was worth moving the amendment at this stage, because Third Reading is too late to seek the sort of clarification that he wanted. I am sure that my noble friend will read the Official Report with great care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 18 [Commission's general purpose]:

Lord Cameron of Dillington: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 7, line 10, after "needs," insert—
	"( ) rural proofing across government and more widely,"

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, forgive me for returning at this stage to the issue of rural proofing but, as we have already seen tonight, it is a very important issue. I believe that the CRC is seriously weakened by not having these words in its primary purposes. I might add that the Countryside Agency attaches a great deal of importance to rural proofing and is sympathetic to what I am trying to achieve through these amendments. It, too, feels that it would be helpful to strengthen the role of the CRC in this respect.
	In terms of having the potential to raise the quality of life in the countryside, I believe that rural proofing is one of the best introductions to government by government, for a very long time. That is because it covers every aspect of 21st-century living and government's role therein. If carried out properly by the departments and the agencies, but enforced by the CRC, it can improve the delivery of health, law and order, educational services, transport, all the way through to advice on business, jobs, and so on. But it does need to be enforced, and it is vital that the CRC has the authority to do just that. It needs to be able to point the finger to name and shame, and it needs the authority of Parliament to do so.
	I have no doubt that the CRC already sees rural proofing as one of its major roles. Within the general purposes as currently spelt out in the Bill it would do its best to play a major role. But I want all departments and all government agencies to know that the powers of the CRC to demand—a key word—high standards of rural proofing come directly from Parliament. I want it to be able to say, "We, the CRC, have a statutory duty to demand rural proofing throughout your work. However awkward it might be for you, you cannot just tell us to go away and leave you in peace. We have a duty authorised by Parliament to be here".
	The Minister said in reply to me in Committee that he thought that the amendments were unnecessary as rural proofing was already at the heart of the CRC's role and work. I would hope that he would have no real concerns about spelling it out on the face of the Bill to strengthen the CRC's hand. As I say, there is broad support within the Countryside Agency for my amendment.
	With my limited knowledge of the inside dealings of these matters, I believe there was a thought at some early stage of the dismemberment of the Countryside Agency that overseeing rural proofing could be left to Defra and one of its Ministers. At any rate, there was a view that that option should be kept open possibly to allow it to happen in the future. I do not believe that view has much support any longer, but it may account for the reluctance, at least in the past, to permit these vital words to slip into the Bill. As I think I have previously explained, it would be entirely unsuitable for one department, Defra, to be looking into the affairs of another. It is important that the job of overseeing rural proofing is carried out by an independent agency, and preferably one which has the authority of Parliament, not just of Defra, to do so. It is of course equally important that someone keeps rural proofing within Defra up to the mark.
	I do not intend to highlight again the myriad examples of the need for rural proofing—we have heard a very good one tonight. We all know they exist, and will continue to exist, across all departments and government agencies. But I would like to repeat what I said last time about sharing some of the misgivings of other noble Lords—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—about the practical effectiveness of the CRC as a body which can research and report but which—I put it this way—will need a lot of political skill to make a difference on the ground. I think it is possible.
	However, effective rural proofing will make a difference on the ground to rural England and the people who live there, across every aspect of their lives. I, therefore, believe that it is important that the CRC is charged by Parliament to monitor rural proofing across government and I ask your Lordships to support these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am minded to accept the principles behind these amendments. The wording is not yet adequate, but I shall discuss that with the noble Lord. We hope to return at Third Reading, meeting the points made by him. I do not want to shorten the debate unnecessarily, but it is important that the House should know that at once.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, those remarks are incredibly helpful. As I have to accept that the CRC is to exist, I would wish it to be as effective as possible. I like these amendments very much. I had hoped that the noble Lord would bring them back at Third Reading, given the hour, but now that the Minister has spoken, I am greatly helped.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Procedure Committee considered matters that have been debated twice being taken away. I draw attention to the fact that its recommendation was that matters of dispute should normally be resolved on Report. I add this for information. I do not want to debate the point. It is perhaps a point that the usual channels should debate. That matter was contained in a report from the Procedure Committee, which the House agreed.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had any intention of doing that. We are all in full support of this. We shall not waste the time of the Minister or of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, except to say well done.

Earl Peel: My Lords, the Minister's intervention has certainly shortened the debate to the extent that I shall not say what I had intended to say, other than to commend to the House the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. In my view, unless a commitment to rural proofing is in the Bill, the future credibility of the CRC is in doubt. I very much welcome what the Minister has said.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister's assurance is most welcome. An amendment in the general spirit of what my noble friend Lord Cameron was asking for will put some real teeth into this commission. I suggest it would be extremely helpful if the commission could consider legislation long before it ever comes to Parliament, when still in a draft and malleable state.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken for their support. I also thank the Minister for his acceptance of the principles behind my amendment. I hope that he and I can agree some suitable wording before Third Reading that includes the words "rural proofing", which are key. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 7, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) sustainable development in meeting the needs of rural inhabitants."

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 103, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104, 105, 107 and 108. The drive behind all these amendments relating to the purposes of the CRC is that the word "rural" means people. It is also about landscape, open air, the countryside, farming, and sometimes tranquillity, but essentially it is about people. If the CRC is to have any value, it must express itself from the very beginning in terms of the people it works for and their needs. Rural people live and sometimes work in the countryside, so it is imperative to consider not only their social and economic needs, but the way in which meeting those needs has an impact on the environment.
	The CRC will have to be constantly aware of the interdependence of these three factors, and will have to ensure that its message to relevant persons makes that relationship clear. We have already dealt with the issue of affordable housing in rural areas, so we do not need to say anything more about that, but the CRC has an important role to play in alerting all manner of authorities and the public generally to the needs of rural areas. Perhaps if the wording is adapted in the way suggested, following the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, that will take care of so many of these things. The CRC will do this best if it is enjoined to think in terms of the people who live there.
	Amendment No. 109, the final amendment in this group, relates to areas under environmental pressure. I think that we all know the problems that occur on the east coast, where the history of cliff erosion is well known. Whole villages disappear below the waves. None the less, it is under increasing pressure, which we are told is caused by the south-east of England tilting gently into the sea and by sea levels rising in response to melting icecaps hundreds of miles away. I have also had some distant experience of the south-west and the environmental pressures of the annual holiday traffic, with its attendant litter, congestion, accident damage, and pressure on water supplies. But none of these things is inconsequential. Many of them impose heavy costs on communities that are not robust enough to bear them unaided. Those communities need a powerful environmental champion, whose voice carries weight in the arguments that surround progress, development and the attainment of government targets. I beg to move.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I support these amendments. I think sustainable development is a very important concept, and if it is important for Natural England to abide by the rules of sustainable development, as I think it should, and if it is important for its board to have to consider the economic and social agendas, it is equally important for the CRC to have to consider the environmental agenda. One of the benefits that the Countryside Agency had over its two predecessors was that it encapsulated the whole principle of sustainable development. Previously, the Rural Development Commission looked after the social and economic aspects, and the Countryside Commission looked after the landscape. They very often gave opposite advice to government, and very rarely co-ordinated their agendas. I thought that various tricks were being missed. But with the advent of the Countryside Agency, the emphasis was on underlining the economic gains to be had from maintaining and promoting our beautiful countryside in national parks, AONBs and elsewhere.
	Not only rural tourism but rural business is attracted by the countryside. It was all co-ordinated. Equally, it was about underlining the environmental and social gain of having profitable businesses, managing the countryside and the land and supporting the regeneration of rural communities. So let us make sure that we roll-out sustainable development as a basic principle underlining the purposes of all these bodies. I support these amendments.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I have some difficulty with the amendments. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said but I rather take the view that, given the very clear environmental brief that Natural England is now taking on, it is important that the Commission for Rural Communities should be allowed to concentrate more on the socio-economic dimensions of rural life. Perhaps there should be a clear distinction between the two organisations.
	One could argue that if Natural England became—I am sure that it will not—overbearingly obsessive in carrying out its functions as far as the environment was concerned, rural communities would be looking to the CRC to come forward and act as a form of socio-economic salvation. I understand the movements behind the amendments and the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but my gut instinct is that it would be a retrograde step to put too much of an environmental brief into the remit of the CRC. I am rather doubtful about that.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I associate myself with the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. We have established that Natural England will have a very clear remit and we are now in danger of confusing the issue and, perhaps more crucially, of confusing the kind of people who we want to serve on the boards of each organisation. They will undoubtedly need different expertise and I should like to be clear about the kind of people we are looking for.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for his proposed amendments, which seek to clarify the focus of the CRC in meeting rural needs. He proposes an alternative version of Clause 18(1)(b) in his Amendment No. 103. That subsection gives the CRC a remit to raise awareness of the needs of rural England among public authorities and other bodies and to promote sustainable ways of meeting those needs which underpin our commitment to promoting sustainable development.
	The Bill puts meeting rural needs first and makes clear that meeting these needs should be done by the CRC in ways which contribute to sustainable development. The proposed amendment seems to turn that around, placing the emphasis on achieving sustainable development. To us, that does not seem quite right. The goal of putting sustainable development into practice by integrating environmental, social and economic objectives drives everything that Defra and its agencies do and the principle was restated in the 2004 rural strategy.
	The Bill will give statutory underpinning to this agenda by requiring Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to seek to contribute to sustainable development through the functions that each perform. In the case of the CRC, the function it will perform should be the promotion of meeting rural needs, as set out in the Bill, while paying due regard to sustainable development.
	In Amendments Nos. 104, 107 and 109, the noble Duke suggests adding an explicit environmental responsibility to the CRC's purpose—we have touched on this at previous stages of the Bill—but, rather than have equal regard to the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainability, the CRC for its part will focus primarily on the social and economic needs of these communities. I can assure noble Lords that the CRC will not, however, be looking at social and economic needs in isolation from environmental issues because a thriving rural economy is inextricably linked to a thriving rural environment. While it will not be responsible for pursuing environmental goals directly, the CRC, we hope, will work to encourage others to consider such issues in a holistic approach to developing sustainable solutions for rural communities.
	In Amendments Nos. 105 and 108, the noble Duke suggests a slight qualification of the CRC's target audience, as it were, narrowing it to persons "living in rural areas", rather than the broader "persons in rural areas". In assessing rural needs, the CRC is tasked with considering the interests of all those who live and work in rural areas, as well as those who visit such areas for recreational purposes. This goes far wider than the focus on just those living—that is to say, resident—in rural areas that seems to have been proposed. I am sure that he would not want the CRC to ignore the needs of the rural tourist industry on which so many rural livelihoods depend and which is susceptible to many factors outside its control. Nor do we believe that the CRC should ignore the needs of migrant workers, who, of course, make a valuable contribution to the rural economy in many parts of England. The CRC must be all about the many different people who live in, work in, visit and otherwise contribute to our rural communities. We do not think that just living there should be the test.
	For these reasons and arguments, I invite the noble Duke to consider withdrawing his amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government's attitude to these issues. I think that a good dinner must have been available around the House, because there seems to have been a lively debate on this subject from all those who have participated, and I thank them.
	I would quarrel slightly with the Minister about the idea that we were in any way bearing down on the tourist industry. As far as I know, the tourist industry is one of the great planks that those who live in rural areas use to maintain their way of life. I am not sure which bit of the tourist industry does not live in rural areas—perhaps bus tours. At the same time, it has been useful to sharpen our minds a little about the different roles of the two commissions, or whatever we like to call them, being set up under this Bill. We are grateful to the Minister for explaining his attitude to the amendments that we have tabled. In light of what he said, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 104 to 109 not moved.]
	Clause 25 [Directions]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 110:
	Page 8, line 28, at end insert "as soon as is reasonably practicable after giving the directions".
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Transfers on dissolution of English Nature and Countryside Agency]:
	[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
	Clause 27 [Continuing powers to make transfer schemes]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 112:
	Page 9, line 21, after "may" insert ", by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament,"

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 112, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 117, which is grouped with it.
	The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has wide powers under a large number of Acts. Some of these Acts are the result of parliamentary deliberation in which many of us have taken part. I do not recall the passage of a single Defra Bill that has not been accompanied by the suggestion that the Secretary of State was about to be given excessive power. To be fair to the Minister, such accusations have not been confined to his department; it seems to be endemic to those who find themselves in government.
	The first of the amendments relates to schemes by which the Secretary of State may transfer property, rights or liabilities of a Minister of the Crown to Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities or to a person acting on behalf of either. I think that my questions are quite natural and normal. Which Minister? Why should the Secretary of State be transferring property, rights or liabilities of another Minister anywhere? If the Minister in question is part of the Defra team, cannot the Bill just say so? Does the occasion of the transfer arise from another department's legislation? Do Natural England or the CRC have any choice in whether they accept the Minister's property?
	Then there is the question of "a person". Would this be a solicitor, for example, acting as a front man to protect the identity of the true recipient? Would such a manoeuvre occur only when the gift was to be shared and the person was, as it were, taking delivery before parcelling it out?
	Amendment No. 117 relates first to the power of the Secretary of State to give directions on the conduct of functions of national or international importance, to be carried out by the UK conservation bodies acting through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Secondly, it relates to the power to give directions to the JNCC on the giving of advice to any of the UK conservation bodies. In both cases, the Secretary of State has to consult with her opposite numbers before giving tongue, and must publish the full text. We feel, however, that the power to transfer property and to issue high-level directions should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, my name is associated with these amendments. What rightly comes before Parliament and what does not is a matter of continuing concern. With the Regulatory Reform Bill in the offing, this is likely to become a much more pressing issue. In the mean time, I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, after the fourth Committee sitting, we wrote to Peers who had spoken in Committee on 27 February with more explanation, among other transfer scheme matters, about how the Secretary of State might need to use the continuing power within Clause 27 to make a further scheme. I reassured noble Lords that the clause would not permit the general acquisition of property held by other public bodies, nor would such a scheme allow the Secretary of State to move assets other than those currently held by English Nature and the Countryside Agency between public bodies in pursuit of achieving government targets.
	In response to a question put by the noble Duke, let me make it plain that "Secretary of State" covers all government departments; it is a single post, occupied by any individual Minister. Clause 27 permits the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to transfer property rights or liabilities of a Minister of the Crown to Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities or a person acting on their behalf, or from the bodies in question to a Minister. Such transfers are intended to cater for the efficient management of property rights and liabilities, and will be related to the setting up of the new bodies. In particular, we envisage that we might need to make a further scheme when something was inadvertently missed in the original scheme on the dissolution of English Nature and the Countryside Agency.
	The ability to make the proposed transfer schemes is required to further the efficient management of property rights and liabilities. The schemes can relate to rights and liabilities affecting staff as well as property. It will be important that where the business need arises, the transfers can be made quickly. Making such subsequent transfer schemes subject to the statutory instrument procedure would add an excessive burden and delay to the process, the principle of which would already have been agreed by Parliament. I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness on some of the constraints on the Secretary of State in those circumstances.
	On Amendment No. 117, powers of direction such as those provided by Clause 38 are very much reserved powers that we hope never to have to use, but are also part and parcel of the safeguards that are normally built into the framework when setting up an NDPB.
	We oppose the amendment because it would allow Parliament to countermand instructions that the Secretary of State had issued. That cannot be right. It would leave the joint committee in the position of not knowing what it should do if a Motion was tabled to annul the statutory instrument.
	A further and arguably more practical consideration is that a delay might result. If a direction is to have value, the joint committee must be able to issue it as soon as the Secretary of State has decided to make it. Given JNCC's status as a cross-border body, any statutory instrument would need to be considered also by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. That would again involve further delay in issuing the direction.
	I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the scope of the movement between the bodies concerned is limited. I invite the noble Duke to withdraw his amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation as far as it went. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her support. Amendment No. 112 applies to Clause 27, which refers to continuing powers to make transfer schemes, but the Minister said the powers would be needed particularly in the winding-down of the existing bodies and the setting-up of the new body. If that is all the powers are required for, would it not be better to confine them to that element rather than make them continuing powers?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Duke. Should any problem arise because an area of property has been overlooked, there would be a need to tidy up afterwards. Having been involved in local government for many years and seen transfer of property in the public sector and higher education, I know that some things are sometimes inadvertently left out. I think that the clause is intended only to cover that sort of issue. Should I be wrong, I will write to the noble Duke.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that amount of clarification. However, even in that case, the power could still be taken as part of the winding-up of the existing bodies and the setting-up of the new ones. That is the central problem that is being addressed and I had hoped that the Minister would focus on it. We will read carefully what the Minister has said in response to the amendments. The fact that the issue is likely to spill out into devolved matters and so on makes it quite complicated. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 113 to 115 not moved.]
	Clause 29 [Interim arrangements]:
	[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
	Clause 38 [Directions]:
	[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 118:
	Page 13, line 18, at end insert "as soon as is reasonably practicable after giving the directions"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Duty to conserve biodiversity]:

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 118A:
	Page 14, line 5, leave out from "functions," to end of line 7 and insert "further the conservation of biodiversity so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I declare the interest that I declared at previous stages of the Bill. In Committee, at col. 763 of Hansard, the Minister said that he expected us to return to this important issue. I said at col. 766 that I would read what he had said. I read the whole debate. I suggested in closing that the issue seemed to have caught the interest of the Committee without the Minister being able immediately to extinguish the fire. On reflection, the quick-fire exchanges at cols. 759 and 762-63, which comprised 17 or 18 different exchanges and snatches of speech, implied what I think the Americans would call a fire-fight. I apologise if I any way provoked it at that late hour.
	Having read the whole 45-minute debate, I would summarise it as the Minister thinking my amendment was a bridge too far and my thinking that the Bill, which I agreed promotes this issue, was a bridge not as far as it might have been.
	I did appreciate better, in retrospect, the points that the Minister made, yet I was still left feeling that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who only intervened briefly, articulated my point succinctly when she said:
	"'Having regard to' and 'considering' can be just paper exercises".—[Official Report, 8/2/06; col. 762.]
	That is another more vivid version of my own expression that "having regard to" is, inter alia, an "amulet against judicial review". I realise that I am simply repeating the amendment that I deployed in Committee, but let me try again to bridge the gap between the Minister and myself, since I believe that he acknowledges the importance of biodiversity.
	The Wildlife and Countryside Link, which I defined and quoted in Committee—and which supports this amendment—wants public bodies to think about biodiversity. Government have an important role in sending strong signals to these bodies that they too have an important role. The Bill is one way of doing that but it is not just about, as the Minister also said in Committee, preventing biodiversity from being "inadvertently damaged", which was in col. 760, nor about choosing between different projects, one of which might be good for diversity but bad for other issues, or vice versa, as he indicated in col. 761. It is much more about considering biodiversity from the outset, thinking positively about it and maximising opportunities for it.
	An example of that might be a proposal to build housing: that is a particular issue in some parts of the country. Yet once the decision for a housing development has gone ahead, how it is designed can contribute to furthering biodiversity. To give a specific example, a new village called Cambourne has been developed near Cambridge. The Wildlife Trust there worked closely with the local authority to ensure that biodiversity was incorporated into the design of the development from the outset. That was due to pressure from the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough and from South Cambridgeshire District Council. The developers themselves employed a team of ecologists on site before the building work started. The new development is interlinked with green space and is now managed by that Wildlife Trust. The area is now rich in wildlife, which can be enjoyed by residents of the development.
	I shall not spell out, at this hour, the lessons that can be learned from this experience but I pay your Lordships' House the compliment of assuming that noble Lords can infer and imagine them, especially the involvement of local people with wildlife in as many ways as possible. Of course I appreciate that the Minister may say that nothing in the Bill prevents that from happening, but I can reasonably say that little in the Bill encourages that to become standard or habitual practice. I realise that there could be other ways of achieving the same ends; a comprehensive performance assessment framework is an important incentive for local authority performance. The Wildlife and Countryside Link would welcome biodiversity being incorporated into that, but the Bill is an important opportunity to send a strong signal—I emphasise "strong"—to local authorities and other public bodies that biodiversity is important.
	I appreciate that Rome was not built in a day; its building took time. Yet each monitoring point on progress in this area, like this Bill, is important. If the Minister believes that the Government have gone as far as they can—I must inform your Lordships' House that I am not responsible for that noise that has just been occurring—it would help if he could spell out more than he was able to, in Committee, what difference the wording in the Bill will make to progress in this field. It would help even more if he could allow a change by Third Reading to progress further in the direction that your Lordships demonstrated in Committee that they wished to see accomplished. I have sought to avoid the Minister feeling a provocation toward rebuttal, but in the same spirit I would welcome a more positive ministerial response, however brief. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I want to identify myself firmly yet again with my noble friend, whom I supported in Committee. His point is that local authorities must begin to embrace the concept of biodiversity in a much more comprehensive way. I understand and genuinely appreciate that to have that in the Bill would create difficulties for local authorities and the Minister. Yet the point my noble friend makes is absolutely right, so I hope that the Minister will give a robust indication in his reply that it is indeed Government policy to ensure that local authorities embrace biodiversity much more positively than they have up 'til now.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. I believe that some local authorities are excellent in practice but, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, rightly says, the comprehensive performance assessment at the moment gives no recognition of that important work, so even those authorities that are excellent do not receive the recognition that they should. The environmental part of the assessment was fairly hard-won, because when the CPA started it did not have an environmental area at all. Now it covers areas such as litter collection, and so on—so I think that biodiversity does need to be in there.
	We on these Benches very often say that they do not believe in duties being imposed on local authorities, particularly when resources do not follow. But I believe that the noble Lord's amendment, in this case, only asks that they further the interests of biodiversity in so far as is consistent with their functions. I really cannot add anything further to what I said in Committee—that I believe that it is about a state of mind and a way of working. I believe that the noble Lord's amendment would help that. I do not myself believe that it would be so hard to put it in the Bill.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support my noble friend in what he is trying to do. I was a little surprised in Committee that we did not get a fuller response, so I am grateful to him for bringing the matter back again today. What he is calling for in the amendment is to have a greater involvement of local communities and a better understanding of how one can develop or plan or evolve in a more biodiverse concept. I know the temptation from the Minister's point of view would be to suggest that if one involves too many people it would take time and that there would be delays on planning and other matters. However, a little bit of forethought in the first instance can bring greater awards at later stages.
	I, too, raise the question, as I did in Committee, whether the proposal involves a financial commitment. I do not see it—and I do not think that my noble friend is moving it in that way; if he is, he may comment on my comment anyway, when he speaks again at the end. But any development that involves local authorities with biodiversity and in how they can help constructively is something that we can support in any case.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue again. He has absolutely nothing to apologise for, except for the mischance that the amendment always seems to come up in what I cannot quite call the "small hours"—but in the "high number hours", at the very least. I thank him for the way in which he put his case.
	Clause 40 places a duty on all public bodies to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. In fact, it extends to all public bodies the existing Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to have regard to biodiversity as far as is consistent with the proper exercise of their functions. This amendment is identical to one debated at Committee and seeks to extend this duty so that public bodies have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity.
	Let me start by setting out what we want to achieve with Clause 40. This duty seeks to raise the visibility and profile of biodiversity across the public sector, to clarify and consolidate public bodies' existing commitments with regard to biodiversity and to make biodiversity a natural and integral part of the decision-making process. I can tell the House that it is our intention that the expression "have regard to" all public authorities will actually mean what it says, and we shall watch very closely to ensure that all public bodies have regard to biodiversity matters in a way in which they sometimes have not in the past.
	We think that the present wording is sufficient for achieving that aim. As is known, Clause 40 extends a pre-existing duty on Ministers and Government to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity, set out in the CROW Act. In the six years since that duty has been in force, government departments have achieved a considerable amount for biodiversity, as I think the noble Lord said himself in Committee, particularly the Home Office and the MoD.
	The noble Lord also mentioned the Prison Service's biodiversity action plan and the useful surveys it has carried out on its estate. Let me go a little further and mention the wildlife areas that have been set up in several prisons across that estate, such as hedgerow planting in HMP Guys Marsh and pond creation in HMP Prescoed, and the fact that last year the service won the biodiversity category of the Corporation of London's Liveable City Awards. Similarly, the MoD has made considerable effort to conserve and enhance the biodiversity on its estate through its development of a biodiversity strategy and the establishment of MoD conservation groups.
	We can see other evidence of departments taking action on biodiversity, through, for example, the publication by the ODPM last August of Planning Policy Statement 9 on biodiversity and geological conservation, and the sustainable framework for the government estate which requires all departments to set out how they can contribute to UK biodiversity targets. We believe that demonstrates the success of the duty to "have regard". By extending the duty within CROW to all public bodies, we wish to achieve similar positive outcomes across the wider public sector.
	The duty will tackle those instances where biodiversity loses out as a result of simply not being considered. It will ensure that public bodies must have considered biodiversity in the normal exercise of their functions. I hope it is reassuring to the noble Lord and the House that Defra is already in discussions with the Local Government Association, the Association of Local Government Ecologists, English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Wildlife and Countryside Link on developing guidance to support local authorities in implementing that duty, with the aim of outlining local authorities' responsibilities with regard to biodiversity in areas such as providing leadership, incorporating biodiversity into planning and community strategies, management of local authority land holdings and the use of information and data.
	Defra is already working closely with partners including the ODPM and the Audit Commission to develop a robust set of biodiversity indicators that can be used to measure local authority performance in future performance frameworks. The first two stages of that project are complete, and we are about to pilot the approach with local authorities across the country. The indicators will create focus on the issue of biodiversity, clearly signal central Government's commitment to biodiversity—which I repeat tonight in the House—and create pressure on local authority performance in this area, as the standardised measure allows for transparent comparisons. Those indicators will be signposted in the guidance we publish.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said in Committee, local authorities can play a greater role in conserving biodiversity. We expect the duty to stimulate a culture change in public bodies and to encourage them to take positive action for biodiversity where it is appropriate to do so. The current wording, supported by relevant guidance, will facilitate that approach.
	There are a number of reasons why we do not think it appropriate to strengthen the duty from "have regard" to "further". We all share the common desired outcome for public bodies to take more positive action. However, in achieving that outcome, we have to ensure that we do not place undue burdens or costs on those we expect to deliver it. If a duty is imposed, we believe it could generate volumes of litigation just to find out what the duty means and what its scope is. That would cost a lot to public authorities.
	We also fear that placing a duty on all public bodies to further biodiversity has the potential to cause difficulties and invite legal challenges on the individual decisions of public bodies—in other words, judicial review. I mentioned in Committee an example where public bodies may be faced with decisions, where they are required to further biodiversity, even when it might be at the cost of other important social, economic or indeed other environmental considerations. This is not in line with the principle of sustainable development, where all three pillars must be balanced accordingly.
	We need to include sufficient flexibility for public bodies, which may need to take actions that are biodiversity neutral but further other worthwhile objectives. This is particularly relevant for public authorities, such as fire and police authorities, where it may be difficult to achieve further biodiversity. But it may equally apply to local authorities, depending on the circumstances.
	Our fear is that the words "to further" may lead to a situation where public bodies are regularly challenged to demonstrate to what degree they furthered biodiversity in all their decisions. Is this always an effective use of local government resources? I was challenged in Committee, quite rightly, that these cases are purely hypothetical. Of course they are hypothetical, because the Bill is not yet passed. But there are, we think, still real concerns.
	I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord has said today. I hope that what I am about to offer will be of interest to the House because there is widespread feeling about the principles behind what the noble Lord has said, if not the detail. My offer, generous or not, is as follows, because I realise that Scotland has taken a certain course in this matter. I am offering that we should assess and review the impact of the duty to "have regard"—which is how the Bill is phrased at the moment—within three years of its coming into force. During that period, we can also look at how the duty "to further" has rolled out in Scotland. Following the review, we can assess whether a stronger duty is necessary and appropriate. That may well not go as far as the noble Lord would like me to go, but I hope he recognises it as a gesture in the right direction.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I thank everyone in your Lordships' House who has taken part in this brief debate. I am grateful for what the Minister said both on practical developments and in particular on the development of guidance. For the past 20 years I have lived on the edge of or close to Salisbury Plain, and I am vividly aware of what the Ministry of Defence has done in the context of biodiversity in that large, open area. It has been worth bringing the matter back on Report to hear what was said by the Minister and by other noble Lords. I regard the Minister's offer as positive and constructive and I am grateful to him for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Peel: moved Amendment No. 119:
	Page 14, line 9, after "Wales" insert "or Natural England"

Earl Peel: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment which would have put an obligation on Natural England to adhere to the United Nations Environmental Programme on Biological Diversity under the general purpose clause of the Bill. The Minister resisted my argument, I think principally on the grounds that the convention is already included in Clause 40. Although not as rigorous as my amendment, Clause 40 does put a duty on a Minister of the Crown, government department and the National Assembly for Wales to have regard to the convention. This amendment is simply to establish whether Natural England is included under this Section. I probably should have included CCW in my amendment, and for that I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, in particular. That was clearly an oversight on my part, but the thrust of the argument remains the same. I imagine that the bodies must be included, as it would be somewhat farcical for such a commitment to be put on a Minister and a government department but not their principal adviser on nature conservation.
	This is principally a probing amendment, and I assume and hope that the Minister will confirm that both Natural England and CCW are included. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we find the matter that my noble friend Lord Peel has brought up interesting. It certainly appears that all public bodies will have the duty to have regard to the United Nations environmental programme, but it would be extremely useful to have that clarified either by the Minister or, if necessary, in the Bill if it requires further emphasis.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Clause 40 places a duty on Ministers of the Crown, government departments and the National Assembly for Wales to have regard to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. This replaces and reflects the provision on Ministers, government departments and the National Assembly under Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
	This subsection of Clause 40 has been mentioned in earlier Committee discussions on whether Natural England's general purpose should make reference to the convention, as the noble Earl said. As previously stated, it is not appropriate to extend this duty beyond government, as the convention is an international treaty which relates to the actions of governments on biodiversity. As part of our commitment to the convention, the Government will invariably look to Natural England to deliver many of the convention's obligations in England, as it will have the expertise and relevant statutory functions to do so. Indeed, as I have outlined before, Clause 41(2) makes it clear that the Secretary of State must consult Natural England before publishing any list of species of principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity.
	I am unable to comment on the point with regard to the CCW and Wales, and know the importance of not going on the hoof about the relationship between the National Assembly and Welsh bodies. I will seek to get the appropriate answer for that. However, we as the Government are signatories to the convention, and it is most appropriate that the responsibility to have regard to the convention rests with government and Ministers. I hope that the noble Earl is satisfied and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, but I am far from satisfied. It seems totally illogical that the treaty should rest with the Government and not percolate down to the main agency that advises them on nature conservation issues.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that I made it clear that the Government would seek to use all those bodies that have responsibility in this field—those that the policy and commitment would be through. The question is whether or not, in the Bill, those bodies as opposed to the Government should be the signatory to the convention.

Earl Peel: My Lords, we are slightly dealing in semantics here. If the Government wanted Natural England, and the Assembly for Wales wanted CCW, to play their part in this, there should be an obligation on them in the Bill to carry out a duty under the convention. I do not agree with the argument that the noble Baroness has put forward. I am certainly not going to divide the House at this late hour, but I have every intention of coming back to the matter at the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 41 [Biodiversity lists and action (England)]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 15, line 12, at end insert "as soon as is reasonably practicable after revising it"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Biodiversity lists and action (Wales)]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 15, line 28, at end insert "as soon as is reasonably practicable after revising it"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 122:
	After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
	"CODES OF PRACTICE
	(1) The Secretary of State may—
	(a) issue a code of practice in connection with any of the provisions of section 44 or Schedule 2 to the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (c. 48) as applied by section 44(4), and
	(b) revise or replace such a code.
	(2) An inspector must have regard to any relevant provision of a code when discharging any function under any provision mentioned in subsection (1)(a).
	(3) But an inspector's failure to have regard to any provision of a code does not make him liable to criminal or civil proceedings.
	(4) A code—
	(a) is admissible in evidence in any proceedings, and
	(b) must be taken into account by a court in any case in which it appears to the court to be relevant."

Lord Bach: My Lords, as Amendment No. 122 and Amendment No. 130 are similar, I will speak to them together.
	During the recent debate in Committee I promised the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that I would consider suitable wording in relation to authorising inspectors having regard to relevant codes of practice when carrying out their duties. I am therefore pleased that Amendments Nos. 122 and 130 not only provide the mechanism by which the Secretary of State can issue codes of practice relevant to the duties of inspectors, but also place an obligation on inspectors to have regard to any provision of such codes when discharging their functions. My department intends to issue codes of practice to inspectors exercising their powers in relation to the possession of proscribed pesticides and to wildlife inspectors exercising their powers as set out in Schedule 5. The pesticides code will be extended to encompass inspections carried out under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 by wildlife inspectors. At present such inspections are not subject to a code of practice. It is appropriate that inspectors must have regard to such codes.
	I believe that these amendments adopt a common-sense approach. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, for having raised the issues in Committee. I hope that the amendments find the approval of the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 122, Amendment No. 123:
	Line 5, after "2" insert "or 10"

Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Government's Amendment No. 122 allows for the issue of codes of practice covering enforcement powers. We are grateful. Our amendment would simply extend the remit of those codes to the investigative powers to be given to the authorised persons working for the levy boards.
	Over the years we have had considerable opportunity to criticise the way in which the Government have created offences and provided for swingeing penalties—something the noble Lord and I discuss on a regular basis. I acknowledge with gratitude the Minister's amendment to Schedule 10, which restricts the way in which a Clause 85 order may penalise a defaulter. None the less, we feel that any power of entry into someone else's domain should be subject to a recognisable and enforceable code of practice. Such a code has the benefit of conformity to a standard in the way in which things are done. It has the added advantage that the punishments awarded by the courts may be more equable, although we still have a difficulty with the tariffs as laid down in the Bill.
	Damaging an SSSI may lead to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, but failing to comply with a levy board's registration requirement could lead to a fine equalling the statutory maximum. The House may be interested to know that this compares with the promise made a couple of weekends ago by the Prime Minister to institute a system of £1,000 fines for those guilty of assaulting NHS staff. I thank the Minister for his amendment and beg to move mine.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I rise to talk briefly to the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 123. My understanding is that the intention is that a similar code of practice should apply in relation to the power of entry available to levy boards under Schedule 10, which will now be restricted to business premises only. Indeed, I think she has discussed her amendment with my honourable friend. If such a code is felt to be desirable, then our feeling is that it would be more appropriate to deal with it in Schedule 10, headed "Ancillary provisions relating to boards", rather than raising it within the scope of the government new clause that fits with Part 3, "Wildlife etc", and the subheading, "Pesticides harmful to wildlife".
	Our view is that there are rather different relationships between levy board staff and their levy payers. The board has wide incidental powers which should be sufficient in dealing with such investigative matters. We are now restricting entry so that authorised levy board officers cannot enter dwellings. In my view, such a specific mention of a code within Schedule 10 is not required. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness either to withdraw her amendment tonight or to raise it again when we come to debate levy boards in Part 8—on Monday, I hope—in the context of my proposed changes to Schedule 10.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, to which I shall certainly give thought, because it was a positive response. I shall withdraw Amendment No. 123.

Amendment No. 123, as an amendment to Amendment No. 122, by leave withdrawn.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 124:
	After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
	"PROHIBITION OF IMPORT OF EXOTIC WILD BIRDS
	(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person imports an exotic wild bird, he shall be guilty of an offence, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the trade in that species—
	(a) does not constitute a threat to the conservation status of that species in its country of origin;
	(b) does not constitute a threat to native biodiversity in the United Kingdom; or
	(c) does not constitute a risk to animal or public health in the United Kingdom.
	(2) In this section, "exotic wild bird" means a bird of a species which is not ordinarily resident in, and is not a regular visitor to, the European territory of any member state of the European Union in a wild state."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in Committee I proposed a blanket ban on the import of wild birds, which the Minister explained was not possible to implement for a number of reasons. So I have change my proposal from a blanket ban to a ban that sets out a number of criteria. An effective ban still remains my ultimate aim. In looking at the practicalities of achieving an effective ban I should mention a couple of points.
	Trade rules allow measures of protection that are proportionate to the problem that they are trying to solve. In this case, the problems caused by the trade are threefold—the risk to the sustainability of bird populations in the countries from which they come, the risks to human health posed by avian flu, and the risks to animal health and biodiversity.
	Regarding the information on whether the trade could be sustainable, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has been involved in bird life for many years through the RSPB, stated in Committee, at col. 34 on 27 February, that over 15 years we pretty much failed to find any way of establishing a sustainable trade.
	At this time of night, I shall not rehearse all the health risks in relation to avian flu, but that still poses a threat. In Committee, the Minister told us that the European Commission was meeting this month to discuss the extension of the ban. He also said that the Commission was arranging a meeting with stakeholders to discuss the possibility of either extending or making permanent that temporary ban. Can the Minister update me on any developments on those fronts and what the timescale is for the consultations, if they have not taken place?
	Finally, I return to the issue of trade law and whether a ban can be supported, because Article 30 of the European treaty allows national governments to adopt proportionate measures to protect animal health—so there could be a permanent ban on that basis. There have been a couple of cases in the European Court of Justice, where such disputes end up—one of which, no doubt, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will be interested in, because it concerned grouse. The second case concerned Danish bees, when it was held that the protection of domestic bees was a valid reason for an import ban, due to the threat from an invasive species. That threat might be in health terms or due to escapees, such as the well publicised case of the parakeet in the Richmond area, because such birds occupy an ecological niche that might otherwise be taken by other birds.
	So there are many reasons that the Government could choose to support a permanent ban. That is not impractical and I hope that the Minister will have a reply that will enable me not to press the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, wish to speak on this group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has explained her amendment clearly. Linked to that are my Amendments Nos. 125 and 126, which stand in both our names, to which I shall speak.
	This Bill will, I hope, be an important part of countryside legislation for a number of years. I am sure we all share that view. It is quite possible that some time in the future someone may find a non-native species well established in some remote, undisturbed place. Judging by the comments being made now about American crayfish and mitten crabs, to which the noble Baroness referred earlier, it is conceivable that this new find could well be considered acclimatised and, in effect, to have gone native. The effects of climate change may well accelerate colonisation by invasive species, and it is conceivable that in coming decades, many flora and fauna will move house to the United Kingdom. Anchoring this clause to a specific date will strengthen it and make it relevant for many years to come.
	Turning to Amendment No. 126, this amendment has changed subtly since Committee. I would like to focus the amendment on the seed trade, something which was nearly not considered; I think everybody thought of animal trade or insect trade. It no longer reads
	"the marketing, sale and introduction of wild bird species".
	Instead, it simply reads,
	"the marketing, sale and introduction of wild species".
	I address the current problems of hybrids and cultivars, which are being traded in the seed trade without adequate description. A central problem is that the introduction of hybrids, cultivars and their derivatives poses a serious threat to biodiversity by eroding genetic diversity. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, explained that there are provisions in law to add hybrids to Schedule 9, as mentioned in paragraph (b) of the clause this amendment applies to. Yet I was disappointed by part of that response, in which the noble Baroness seemed to sideline a real issue. The noble Baroness said that any species could be added to Schedule 9, but added later:
	"There is currently no prohibition under Section 14 of the 1981 Act from planting hybrids in the wild or from causing them to be grown there".—[Official Report, 27/2/06; col. 60.]
	In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked a series of questions about how EU and UK regulations coincide. The noble Baroness asked if the same rules applied across the whole of Europe, or simply to the UK. Having checked the Defra website on plant breeders' rights, under its "Plant varieties and seeds" section I found the following, rather confusing information:
	"The UK, however, allows UK Plant Breeders' Rights to be suspended whilst Community Plant Variety rights are exercised, which allows UK rights to be re-invoked if Community Plant Variety rights are terminated".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that she would write to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on that question, but unfortunately I was not quite sure of the outcome of that. I ask the Minister if she is able to give any firm indication as to when provisions will be made to tackle invasive plant species. The amendment would not—as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, stated in Committee—restrict the code of practice; rather it would widen the criteria. The clause presently states that the Secretary of State,
	"may issue a code of practice relating to",
	the following criteria. The list of those criteria, therefore, is not exclusive, but suggestive. This amendment would be an effective way to start tackling the problem of invasive plant species.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I will begin by speaking to Amendment No. 124. We accept that the sustainability of the current trade in wild birds is a matter of considerable public concern. It is very difficult for the UK to take action addressing these issues in isolation from the rest of the EU. There are provisions that enable the UK to introduce stricter domestic measures on wildlife trade, but they raise complex legal issues that require careful consideration.
	At best, this measure would be difficult to enforce, given the free circulation of goods within the EU. At worst, the measure could result in infraction proceedings by the European Commission on the grounds that it is contrary to the provisions of the treaty or that it contravenes WTO rules. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, the European Commission is already looking at these issues in the light of the threat from avian influenza, and the import of all wild birds into the EU has been suspended until 31 May as a precaution.
	The Commission has also been asked to consider whether there are grounds for extending the ban on a more permanent basis. For that reason, we feel that it would be premature for the UK to introduce any stricter measures with respect to the importation of wild birds, pending the development of a wider EU position on this matter.
	The UK is of course very concerned about the levels of mortality among some imported wild birds and we have already asked the Commission to look into this. Officials have already met the three relevant directorates general to discuss these issues and have hosted a round-table discussion with key stakeholders to examine the impact of trade bans on illegal trade and livelihoods.
	In the mean time, I should point out that CITES, which is implemented within the EU by means of European Council Regulation 338/97, already provides a robust mechanism for protecting some 1,700 bird species considered to be at risk from unsustainable trade. Action has been taken in the past to suspend trade or impose quotas with countries that fail to implement CITES properly, and we will continue to support such action in the future.
	The European Commission also has powers under Article 4.6 of Council Regulation 338/97 to make regulations to prohibit the import of other species for which trade is considered unsustainable or where there is a threat to native biodiversity. These powers have already been used to prohibit the import of the ruddy duck and the American bullfrog into the EU, and we are currently considering using existing powers in the regulation further to prohibit the keeping of these animals within the UK.
	We also have domestic legislation in place to deal with threats to native biodiversity. Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to release or allow to escape into the wild any animal, including birds, that is not ordinarily resident in, or a regular visitor to, Britain. Supplementary to these existing provisions, Clause 49 of this Bill also includes provisions to regulate the sale of non-native invasive species.
	The timetable for consultation on the bird ban in the EU is in the hands of the Commission. It is awaiting an opinion from the European Food Standards Agency on the impact of bird trade on animal health and welfare and it is expecting a report in October.
	We believe that it would be premature to adopt an additional tier of regulation on top of the existing controls on the trade in exotic birds. Such overlapping legislation is likely to be confusing to traders and enforcers alike. We believe that we should have consultation before such a measure is taken and we want to await the outcome of the current deliberations within the EU.
	Nothing that I have said on Amendment No. 124 should be taken as minimising the strength of feeling of which we are aware not only in the House but among the British public.
	I shall seek to respond to the amendments spoken to in this group by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I apologise to the House. It was a complete oversight on my part. I would have said more about the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I unfortunately got my papers the wrong way round, but I am happy if the Minister wishes to deal with them now.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I assumed that we had an ad hoc grouping and was quite happy about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, need not apologise.
	Clause 50 provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice relating to non-native species, or to approve such codes issued by others. The purpose of the codes is to inform and educate people so that they do not cause problems for our native biodiversity by inadvertently allowing non-native species to establish themselves in the wild. They provide guidance on how to avoid committing an offence, of releasing or allowing the escape of non-native animals, or planting or causing non-native plants to grow in the wild.
	Amendment No. 125 would set the clause's commencement as a baseline date so that codes may be issued or approved by the Secretary of State for any animals that were not ordinarily resident or regular visitors to GB at that date. That would mean that such codes could be issued in relation to any animal which became established in the wild after that date, and which was not listed in Schedule 9 to the 1981 Act. An example would be chipmunks. I admit that my grandchildren are trying to find out where the chipmunks are in the wild because of their Chip & Dale, but they have not found them.
	Under the terms of Clause 50 a code could be issued on how such animals should be kept in captivity. There has recently been a number of sightings of chipmunks in the wild. In time, they could become self-sustaining, and as a result would be considered to be ordinarily resident. That would mean that the Secretary of State could not issue a code for the keeping of chipmunks under Clause 50. Unless and until the species was listed on Schedule 9, the amendment would allow her to do so without such a listing.
	At first sight it looks attractive, but we consider the appropriate mechanism for dealing with non-native species, which become established in the wild, is to list them on Schedule 9, which will ensure that further releases remain illegal. That would also bring them back within the scope of Clause 50(1)(b), and additions to the schedule can be made by the Secretary of State at any time.
	Amendment No. 126 is similar to one tabled in Committee, and seeks to add an alternative category for which such codes may be issued. The new category for which the Secretary of State may issue or approve a code of practice is for the marketing, sale and introduction of wild species, hybrids and cultivars derived from hybrids, including those considered indigenous or naturalised to Great Britain, as well as those considered not ordinarily resident. Any plant, including hybrids, can be added to Schedule 9. A consultation on additions to Schedule 9 will be published before the summer.
	Amendment No. 126 would widen the scope of animals and plants to which codes may relate, and specifically includes wild species—an uncertain term that is open to wide interpretation—hybrids and cultivars of hybrids. Following our debates in Committee, I am assuming that that is to ensure that cultivated species of hybrid plants are covered, and from what the noble Baroness said, I think that that assumption is right.
	We consider that hybrid animal and plant species are already covered by Sections 14(1) and (2) of the 1981 Act, and therefore also by Clause 50. Most animal hybrid species are not ordinarily resident in the UK, and so will be caught by Section 14(1)(a) and paragraph (a) of the list in proposed new Section 14ZB(1). Hybrid animals that are ordinarily resident can be listed in Schedule 9, as sika deer hybrids have been, and so would be covered by Section 14(1)(b) and paragraph (b) in new Section 14ZB accordingly.
	In relation to plants, there is nothing to prevent hybrid plant species being listed in Schedule 9 so that they are covered by Section 14(2) and paragraph (b). Finally, you will note that new Section 14ZB(c) permits the issuing of codes in relation to descriptions of animals and plants included in paragraphs (a) and (b). We believe that this could include hybrids and cultivars of those species. We think that this is the appropriate and simplest course to take.
	I understand that the noble Baroness's intention is to prevent the inadvertent introduction of hybrids of native plants, such as Spanish bluebells, which are hybridising with our native bluebells and transforming our native woodland. There is currently no prohibition under Section 14 of the 1981 Act on planting hybrid bluebells in the wild or from causing them to grow there.
	We believe, however, that our current legislation is adequate, because, as explained above, any plant, including hybrids, can be listed in Schedule 9 and, therefore, fall subject to Section 14. A review of Schedule 9 is currently being undertaken and a consultation on proposed additions and deletions is likely to be published in the next few months.
	The amendment also widens the scope of Clause 50 to include those species that are considered indigenous or naturalised. Presumably these are included so that codes may be issued in relation to species which are considered to have become ordinarily resident but are not listed on Schedule 9, for example, rabbits.
	I have tried to cover this as rapidly as I can. There is much more that I could add. I would like to take the opportunity to write to noble Lords who have shown an interest.
	In practice, codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State will be targeted at vectors of introduction rather than specific species—for example, the code published last year was targeted at the horticultural sector; this year's code will be targeted at the exotic pet trade, and a future code will be aimed at transportation routes.
	I turn to Amendment No. 127, which has not yet been spoken to.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I can clarify the position. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has not had a chance because I was out of order in trying to move my amendment. I do not know whether she wishes to speak to Amendment No. 127. We have not had a chance to debate it.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, because of the groupings, I have spoken only to my amendment. It would be clearer if I made my reply to the Minister's reply, without now trying to go into all the other issues.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. I apologise. There will be many cases where we want to issue codes relating to non-trade activities, such as the cultivation, breeding and keeping of species, hybrids and cultivars. We would not want to imply that codes could not be issued in relation to those.
	We appreciate that the intent behind Amendment No. 127 is to make those people who fail to comply with the code of practice issued or approved under Clause 50 liable to criminal or civil proceedings. That would elevate the codes to a status that we believe is totally inappropriate. Most introductions are not deliberate and these codes are intended to guide rather than to legislate. I draw a parallel with the Highway Code. Much as failure to comply with many of the provisions in those codes is not an offence in itself, it may be used as evidence in court proceedings under the Traffic Acts to establish liability. Failure to comply with a Clause 50 code may be used in court as evidence of whether a defendant can come within the terms of the defence of taking reasonable steps, and exercising due diligence to avoid committing an offence under Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness with regard to Amendment No. 127.
	I apologise for detaining the House at this hour, but there is great interest in this, and I will write to noble Lords if I have left out anything that would be of additional help. I hope that the noble Baroness will not need to press her amendment to a vote.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the fullness of her reply. I shall start with the last point first. She is absolutely right about the codes, but it would be a very serious matter if someone did not abide by the exotic bird code, for example, and introduced bird flu that affected all our poultry flocks and possibly also human health. As she said, there are lines that can be followed.
	On the substantive amendment, the Minister mentioned that certain decisions would be taken at EU level by October. I hope that the Government will press for the ban to stay in place at least until October, pending a more permanent decision. She also mentioned the movement of goods as a reason why we could not impose a permanent ban, but I believe that it is accepted more and more that live birds and live animals cannot be treated simply as if they were any other moveable goods. The case law that I quoted when I moved the amendment leads me to believe more firmly that there will be a separation between what is and is not reasonable. I encourage the Minister and her department to consider the developments of case law that would enable us to look to a permanent ban where we believe it to be in the interests of animal health or national biodiversity. I believe that the law is beginning to recognise that live creatures are different.
	There are a couple of myths which the Minister needs finally to dispel. One is that the trade in imported wild birds can be regarded in any way as sustainable. The second is that CITES species are in some way adequately protected. I do not want to repeat those arguments at this hour, but will say merely that there is not enough scientific evidence to assess the impact of the trade on CITES species listed in Appendix 2. I believe that every NGO in the business would accept that, as, I hope, would her department.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 50 [Codes of practice in connection with invasive non-native species]:
	[Amendments Nos. 125 to 127 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at one minute to eleven o'clock.

Wednesday, 15 March 2006.